Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 25th, 2014 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: DEALING WITH ANTS
Content:
TaTa said:
What can i do for the ones that i did kill?

krodha wrote:
Vajrasattva.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 4:16 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Self-liberation has to be effortless. The famous effortless effort means leaving 'it' as it is. This is another description of what reality is and why I find being a realist so important.

krodha wrote:
Definitely not a description of what 'reality' is. Effortless self-liberation [rang grol] is only valid from the standpoint of the definitive view, which means one has recognized the definitive nature of mind [sems nyid] and is resting in that knowledge [rig pa]. Self-liberation isn't possible from the standpoint of mind. We can of course create an inferential semblance of what self-liberation is like, mimic it in a provisional way, but that is not truly self-liberation. Only in the state of contemplation is self-liberation valid.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 3:16 PM
Title: Re: Chogyal N. Norbu, May 23rd-31th, Longsall Atii Gongpa Go
Content:
krodha wrote:
This teaching is in Longsal Vol. 2 'The Opening of the Gate to the State of Ati'.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: chNNr New York Retreat
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Indeed. Is that the intended word? I might guess that "yedal" = "ye bral" but I would like to know for sure.

krodha wrote:
Seems to be. And then 'ye' is a contraction of yé né [primordial, from the beginning]. 'Bral' is a negation.

This is pure speculation for me though.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 24th, 2014 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: chNNr New York Retreat
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
So what is “Khorva Yedal”  in Wylie?

krodha wrote:
'khor ba means samsara.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Nothing Exists
Content:
Jesse said:
Poor Elephant.

krodha wrote:
Ha I think it's a horse, it's supposed to be at least.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pensum said:
Thanks asunthatneversets, that's a good quotation from an excellent source.

So from the perspective that the sense consciousnesses are merely modes of consciousness (in that they are not distinct from or separate from consciousness), it would seem that, contrary to Malcolm's claim, according to Dudjom Lingpa the body can affect consciousness, if only to cause the locus of its attention to shift from the senses to the alaya.

And with that the bell rings for the next round of this heavyweight contest between the reigning champion Malcolm and the gritty contender Andrew108. Let's keep it clean boys...

krodha wrote:
The sensory consciousnesses are different modalities (six to eight depending on the system) of what is referred to as 'consciousness', but we cannot really say they are different modes of 'consciousness' in the sense that consciousness is a singular thing which possesses subsidiary offshoots of itself. That is more of the Vedanta approach which treats consciousness as a single capacity which then can either interact with the sense faculties, or recede back into itself (much like covering all the windows while inside a house). Buddhism doesn't really go that route. In terms of the buddhadharma, these consciousnesses are always aggregated and heterogenous, rather than secondary expressions of a primary homogenous overarching consciousness.

The ālaya, in the way that Dudjom Lingpa is using the term is actually a division of the eighth consciousness [ālayavijñāna] into the all-basis [skt. ālaya, tib. kun gzhi] and all-basis consciousness [skt. ālayavijñāna, tib. kun gzhi rnam shes]. Generally the eighth consciousness is only the ālayavijñāna. So this division is something like the division that the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje made with the seventh consciousness [klṣṭa-manas], and therefore isn't something which is necessarily accepted everywhere. Though personally I think it is a valuable distinction, because the ālaya acts as the conditioned background substratum which seems to form due to the solidification of delusion (the ālaya is really delusion itself). The arūpadhātus explored in deep samādhi states are actually the experience of being directly absorbed into the ālaya, which is why in Dzogchen it is said that attachment to the ālaya is cause for rebirth in formless devalokas (and then attachment to ālayavijñāna is cause for rebirth in the form realm, and attachment to thought is cause for rebirth in the desire realm).

Within the body, consciousness rides the rlung and depends upon other factors for sustenance, and that aspect of this topic is really quite multifaceted... others are far more qualified to comment on it than I am. But I would say it is most likely a two way street; the body can affect the consciousnesses, and the consciousnesses can affect the body. Again however, there are various facets to this issue, because yogis who have purified themselves of delusion are obviously not affected the same way everyday sentient beings are. For they have fully realized that body, speech and mind are inseparable and thus the bindings of the seal of the body are undone.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Nothing Exists
Content:
Jesse said:
DharmaWheel Should invest in buying sticks for our moderators. I can see them being used alot.

krodha wrote:
Definitely. They need to play catch up with the rest of the forum members who use their sticks incessantly...


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Are animals mindful?
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Animal" is sort of a vague, blanketed and overarching term which is commonly used for pretty much any 'earthly' sentient being which isn't a human being.

Excerpt from the synopsis of Jacques Derrida's The Animal That Therefore I Am:
"The book is at once an affectionate look back over the multiple roles played by animals in Derrida's work and a profound philosophical investigation and critique of the relegation of animal life that takes place as a result of the distinction - dating from Descartes - between man as thinking animal and every other living species. That starts with the very fact of the line of separation drawn between the human and the millions of other species that are reduced to a single; the animal."

So 'animal' is misleading relegation which stems from our own anthropocentrism as human beings. In order to explore this topic in a valuable way you would surely have to address different species or classes of beings in a more precise manner. For instance, according to the general 'animal' classification (in its conditioned, subconscious and anthropocentric expression), a mouse and a dolphin are equivalent. However we know that they (a mouse and a dolphin) are both vastly different in capacity and nature. Dolphins and whales have exhibited advanced forms of communication between members of their pods, along with clearly calculated and strategic behavior depending on the circumstances. Not to mention the expression of emotions much like our own. If these examples are not evidence of something equivalent to what we refer to as 'thought-processes' in our own species, I'm not sure what would be.

Either way though, it is an interesting topic no doubt, and should make for a good discussion.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 23rd, 2014 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pensum said:
So what then actually occurs when one is struck a heavy blow to the head and knocked "unconscious"?

krodha wrote:
The consciousnesses recede into the all-basis [ālaya] i.e. substratum, according to Dudjom Lingpa (granted this interpretation is one of many):

"The actual ālaya is something immaterial, thinking nothing, a space-like vacuity and blankness in which appearances are impeded. Know that you come to that state in deep, dreamless sleep, when you faint, and when you are dying."

"...the genuine ālaya [tib. kun gzhi], which is immaterial like space, a blank, unthinking void. Arrival in that state corresponds to being comatose, being in meditative absorption, arriving in a trance induced by meditative stabilization, being engulfed by deep sleep in the ālaya in which appearances have dissolved into the ultimate nature [tib. dbyings, skt. dhātu], and arriving at the point of death, in which appearances have shifted. That is called the genuine, ālaya."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 11:53 AM
Title: Re: why is Vajrayana considered the fasted way to buddhahood
Content:
rory said:
So then it's like the Hindu system of tantra which is a yoga and experiential? How is it different then from Hindu tantra?

krodha wrote:
Vajrayāna Buddhism vis-à-vis Hindu Tantra by Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche:
http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VajrayanaBuddhismVisAVisHinduTantricism.aspx


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 8:15 AM
Title: Imitating Freedom: View of Actualism vis-a-vis Dzogpa Chenpo
Content:
krodha wrote:
Here is a short essay by a member of a fellow dharma forum titled: "Imitating Freedom: A Buddhist Refutation of Actualism". The paper explores the differences between "Actual Freedom" a.k.a. "Actualism", which is the teaching of a guy named Richard Parker who resides in Australia, and Ati Dzogpa Chenpo.

I am not posting the essay here for the purpose of comparing Dzogchen to a different view in order to say it is superior (or the other inferior etc.), but because the way the writer goes about making his points is well thought out and serves to address some of the subtle intricacies of the Dzogchen view. Primarily some of the notable differences between the nature of (i) the all-basis (or basis-of-all as it is coined in this paper) [skt. ālaya, tib. kun gzhi], (ii) the all-basis consciousness [skt. ālayavijñāna, tib. kun gzhi rnam shes] and (iii) the definitive view of primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes]. Focusing on how each of these aspects unfold (or in the case of primordial wisdom; may potentially unfold) in one's experience moment to moment.

The writer's argument is that the view of "Actualism" does not go beyond the all-basis, but according to the buddhadharma no other views or paths do (otherwise they would be vehicles of liberation), so this statement is nothing new. However the points surrounding this argument may be beneficial, as right view (whether inferential or direct) is an important aspect of Dzogchen and the buddhadharma in general.

There is no abstract (summary) for the essay, but here are the opening and concluding remarks:

"'Actual Freedom' or 'Actualism' is a fringe quasi-tradition which asserts an attainment of the same name. It utilizes methods intended on pointing out or bringing about a condition it calls 'pure conscious experience' or 'PCE', while it asserts all other conditions to be altered states of consciousness. PCE is an apparently non-dual and non-conceptual condition initially occurring for a brief instance prior to perception where there is an uninterpreted moment of pure sense datum, where the experiential continuum isn’t taken as an object nor are sense-objects being segmented and subsequently experienced as concepts, and where involuntary and recollective self-conscious memory imprints are not functioning, renewed, or newly created. During the course of repeatedly pointing out or bringing about such a condition (PCE qua path), the once brief instance is extended and then appears to stick (PCE qua fruit), and this apparently persisting condition is called 'actual freedom'. As implicitly implied by its name and by the terminology used, the quasi-tradition and its progenitor assert superiority and novelty over rigorously developed contemplative traditions such as Buddhism, referring to the Awakening found in Buddhism as mere 'spiritual enlightenment' an 'altered state of consciousness' while branding itself as a 'third alternative'."

"...'actualism' and its asserted freedom found in the the state of 'actual freedom' is not the true freedom of Rigpa, and it is devoid of meaningful novelty. It is evidently the base-of-all, providing no notable contribution to the science of contemplative theory or practice. Actualism tries to present itself as different, a third alternative, even an optimization, yet none of these claims have been demonstrated in the slightest. Actualism is a case of a distinction without a meaningful difference, and at that, a deluded path misinterpreting the base-of-all qua total relaxation, a path not capable of directly bringing about total freedom and even hindering the search and attainment of the freedom found in the supersanity of Rigpa qua fruit, the absolute total relaxation, the total completeness, the supreme happiness, ultimate satisfaction, and end to existential lack and thus a total plenitude. In the face of Rigpa therefore, it is a mere imitation of freedom."

The paper can be downloaded directly from this thread, or here is another link to download the essay via scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/218157375/Imitating-Freedom-a-Buddhist-refutation-of-Actualism


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: gDangs And mDangs: Differences In Meaning?
Content:


Malcolm said:
1) gdangs
2) mdangs, it is a translation of ojas.
3) dwangs ma is the nutriment, it means refined essence.
4) gdangs.

krodha wrote:
Thanks!

Is there anything to the internal-external dichotomy (in relation to these terms) as suggested by the Longchenpa references above? Or does gdangs account for the radiance in general, and mdangs (as the ojas) is therefore unrelated in that context?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: gDangs And mDangs: Differences In Meaning?
Content:
krodha wrote:
A few other questions:

Which is the proper Wylie transliteration for 'dang', in the context of the three energies: dang, rol pa and rtsal [gdangs or mdangs]? Because I have seen both used in that context.

Which [gdangs or mdangs] is the vital essence (dang) spoken of in Tibetan medicine?

How about this third term 'dwangs'? Is dwangs simply an orthographic variant of one of the above terms?

When Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche makes a statement such as "The dang of emptiness is rigpa", which variant [gdangs or mdangs] is he using?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 3:25 AM
Title: gDangs And mDangs: Differences In Meaning?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I came across a discussion regarding gdangs and mdangs some time ago and it doesn't seem as if there was any solid consensus as to the meaning of these terms. I had always assumed these variants were orthographic in nature as suggested below, however that does not seem to be the case.

On one hand both terms appear to be denoting a glow, dynamism or radiance, yet on the other hand there seem to be subtle distinctions in the meaning and treatment of that radiance. The suggestion that gdangs means "tone, pitch, tune or melody" appears to fall in line with the idea of 'sound', in sound, light and rays. Per Longchenpa, gdangs is said to be an outwardly (or externalized) radiance (or display) [phyi gsal], as opposed to mdangs which is said to be an internalized glow [nang gsal]. How does this internal-external dichotomy coincide with rol pa and rtsal?

-----------------------

Here are the different views expressed in the blog:
( https://philologia-tibetica.blogspot.com/2012/08/blog-post_7033.html )

"གདངས། མདངས།
Sometimes it is not easy to keep the meanings of gdangs and mdangs apart. But perhaps we can live with this distinction: dgangs is vocal or audial impulse or dynamism and hence it could mean 'tune, melody, lyrics, etc.' whereas mdangs is optical or visual impulse and hence is connected with 'colour, shimmer, glow, etc.' But then what do we do with terms such as rig gdangs or rig pa’i gdangs? Perhaps gdangs in this context is to be understood in the sense of 'impulse, pulse, dynamism, impetus.'"

And the responses:
(i) "I don't know, but I always thought that it was just a spelling preference, except of course when you're reading Longchenpa. For him the mdangs is inward radiance and the gdangs is outward radiation, right? Do you think other writers outside Longchenpa's tradition make this distinction? Is there a pre-Longchenpa background? Do you think dwangs/dwangs-ma is somehow meaningfully implicated in these other two forms? Sorry, today I'm more question than suggestion."

(ii) "I have assumed that for most Tibetan writers, gdangs and mdangs would not be simply orthographic variants but that gdangs is always related with voice/sound whereas mdangs with brilliance (inner or outer) and thus connected with colour or glow. I did not know of the existence of an inner–outer distinction. So we find sgra/skad/ngag/dbyangs/gzhas/bred gdangs (cf. mgur len pa’i gdangs), all of which are recorded in the Tshig mdzod chen mo. That mdangs has to do with glow can be seen in the phrase: dkar la dmar ba’i mdangs chags pa 'a tinge of red formed on [the base of] white [colour].' See also dkar/dmar/’od/bkrag/gzi mdangs, etc."

(iii) "Not to answer my own question, but I look in the Negi dictionary and see that mdangs was used to translate Sanskrit ojas and rajas — the fiery fury of the human spirit — and gdangs is not used for those words, but rather Sanskrit words that have to do with tune or melody. But what does this have to do with Longchenpa's meanings?"

(iv) "So this supports our understanding that mdangs has to do with 'radiance,' 'brilliance,' 'flare,' or 'charisma' whereas gdangs with melody. In the rDzogs-chen context, I tend to think that gdangs is quasi-synonymous with rtsal inasmuch as rig pa’i rtsal and rig pa’i gdangs too seem to be quasi-synonymous although some rDzogs-chen exegetes would insist on making a distinction between the two. So I think it would be justified to be understand gdangs in the rDzogs-chen context as 'dynamism' or 'impetus.'"

(v) "You can find some Longchenpa examples in an article by Daniel Scheidegger in RET —

http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_16_02.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He could have derived his interpretations from Guenther's Longchenpa, I suppose, but here gdangs much more than mdangs, has to do with light radiation outward. Gdangs is used with visual, not audial, contexts or metaphors. Let me look in Germano's dissertation... He discusses it on p. 866, in his entry headed 'dynamism.' He says, 'It should be kept in mind that Longchenpa strictly differentiates between "glow" (mDangs) and "radiation" (gDangs), with the former signifying a non-manifest internal glowing associated with "internal radiance" (Nang gSal), and the latter signifying externally manifest radiation into actualized forms associated with "external radiance" (Phyir gSal).'

Does that take us anywhere interesting? I was kind of thinking that gdangs can have a technical musicological meaning when you are talking about music, but a different meaning in other contexts, like Dzogchen especially..."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
If it did that then it would be conditioned. The problem here is thinking that tha mal gyi shes pa should function in a particular way. I think this is a fault of over intellectualizing and of viewing the mind as primary.

krodha wrote:
Ye shes [tha mal gyi shes pa] surely 'functions' in a certain way. It is wisdom which cognizes the unconditioned and primordial non-arisen nature of phenomena.

The mind is primary in the sense that you cognize phenomena because you have a mind. Not in the sense of your fabricated idea that making the mind primary entails everything being subjective, that has already been demonstrated to be an ill-conceived byproduct of your own personal view.

Of body, speech and mind, mind is held to be foremost.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
It actually doesn't matter what you call it or how you conceive of it. When you find it you recognise it. Better to pay attention to how it is to be found. Or am I wrong?

krodha wrote:
I can loosely agree that it doesn't matter what you call it, though it makes better sense to use conventional parlance. As for how it is conceived, I would argue it is incredibly important. Right view is a necessary foundation and requirement for that finding to occur.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Tha mal gyi shes pa is absolutely 100 percent natural.

krodha wrote:
There's a difference between 'natural' and readily or easily accessible.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, in the sense that thoughts (citta) are contaminated consciousness, and "ordinary mind" is an untainted consciousness, i.e. ye shes. So the difference is more like gold in gold ore and refined gold, rather than a substantial difference. The shes pa is the same in both.

krodha wrote:
Yes better way to put it. Yet I still believe Andrew mistakes ye shes for merely resting in an indeterminate cognizance which lacks insight into its nature. He certainly appears to contend that ye shes does not cognize the non-arising nature of phenomena.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I was talking about tha mal gyi shes pa. Which is very close.

krodha wrote:
Sems and tha mal gyi shes pa are only 'close' in the same sense that gold and pyrite are 'close', in appearance. However they are not 'close' at all in fundamental characteristic or constitution.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
In terms of appearances it doesn't eradicate anything. If it did then it wouldn't be tha mal gyi shes pa. On the plus side it does eradicate (naturally) any grasping to those appearances and then it doesn't establish that appearances are either real or unreal. That's about it.

krodha wrote:
I never said that it eradicates appearances. Since it is a valid cognition (of appearance), it surely reveals the non-arising nature [dharmatā] of phenomena, hence, their unreality.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Non-duality is a fact. Right now non-fixation is a fact. Perfect Pure Presence is a fact. These are entirely natural and entirely factual. They are Buddhist invariance.

krodha wrote:
They are natural and factual if you have recognized them in a direct and concrete way. Otherwise they are ideas no different than the rebirth that you reject, or the quantum theory that you accept.

Andrew108 said:
But the problem is when we use concepts to tell reality how it should be.

krodha wrote:
Because we all know it should really be a reality which possesses natural laws and is made of gross material elements.

Andrew108 said:
We have to uncover these natural wonders for ourselves and really that to me is the beauty of Buddhism. Meditation is sooooo easy when you know how to rest in ordinary mind. And this ordinary mind is 100 percent natural.

krodha wrote:
You must mean 'ordinary mind' [sems]... because the other 'ordinary mind' [tha mal gyi shes pa] isn't the walk in the park you seem to be suggesting it is. Plus the fact that truly resting in tha mal gyi shes pa completely eradicates any notions of a so-called reality which could accord with a physicalist or materialist paradigm.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
There is a fundamental contradiction in Buddhism:

The Buddha is known as an independent thinker and innovator. We are encouraged to emulate him, yet are obliged to follow his teaching without question and without making any compensation for the enormous social and cultural changes that have occurred over the 2000+ years since it was written down.

krodha wrote:
You'll have to be more specific about which "enormous social and cultural changes" you are alluding to...


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: karma bully
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Actually, I just express myself in a way that was not clear what I meant, but this debate was positive, because I learned how to express myself better. I do not believe that karma is just a Buddhist or a Hindu theory, all religions and materialistic philosophies speak of causality somehow. Buddhist philosophy explains karma in order to help people to achieve enlightenment, then it seems to me to be something dangerous to use karma in other context.

krodha wrote:
Though it is important to be mindful of the fact that the difference between materialist causality, and the nature of karmic causality, is incredibly vast. Honestly the true meaning of karma in the context of the buddhadharma does not even really apply to the materialist interpretation of causality. Sure, 'karma' means 'action' and so you can say that there are gross karmic forces playing out in the context of materialist causality, but the meaning is entirely different when compared to karmic causation associated with pratītyasamutpāda and so on.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 19th, 2014 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
And yet you do accept that rebirth is a convention:

krodha wrote:
Everything is a convention. You still don't seem to understand Madhyamaka very well, probably due to your continual deprecation of studying and refining your understanding.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 19th, 2014 at 2:34 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
7. Middle way teachings are subtle and easily misunderstood.

krodha wrote:
I like that you state this prior to confidently citing various [Middle Way] quotes you clearly misunderstand.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 18th, 2014 at 12:46 PM
Title: Re: Celibacy
Content:
krodha wrote:
Well for everyone in the northern hemisphere it's about that time for the late-spring and summer sex life as suggested by Tibetan medicine... which is once every fortnight. So prepare thyself for the spurts of fourteen day abstinence and/or retention.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 18th, 2014 at 9:15 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Matt J said:
Following this to its conclusion, if we are ill, then we might as well follow the advice of a schizophrenic as a medical doctor since both are "mirages." The hand and the foot are both empty, but try to brush your teeth with your foot and try to walk around with your hands.

krodha wrote:
Ah, well you're missing the point I was making and taking this in a direction it isn't meant to go. My comment applies solely to the notion that science (and natural laws) are somehow more valid than other views (in an inherent sense). Andrew's original comment was that science (and natural laws) are the best definition of what counts as convention, and so I was specifically addressing the prospect of actually believing that one relative truth is inherently superior to others, 'inherently' being the key word (because that is what Andrew is proposing). I used the ultimate point of view to illustrate how his proposition does not withstand scrutiny, and not in the radical, illogical, nihilistic manner you seem to be insinuating I was.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 18th, 2014 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Matt J said:
While true, some models work better than others. For example, I would prefer the modern Western medical model over the Medieval Western 4 humors theory as the Western model appears to allow people to live longer.

krodha wrote:
Right, and these are examples of semblances of relative truth. If one prefers modern western medicine over other options then that is your preference. And we can even explore, compare and contrast the efficacy of certain treatments between different medicinal approaches, thereby establishing what we could refer to as relative truths.

However since we are approaching this issue through the lens of the buddhadharma we must admit that relative truths are merely examples of reliable efficacy on the relative platform. In the ultimate sense everything relative is non-arisen and lacking inherency in every way, ergo relative truths are acceptable in their context but are ultimately unfounded since they are fallacies.

My point being that we can surely declare that one relative account is more accurate than another but this declaration does not transcend the relative level and is revealed to be an abstraction from the ultimate standpoint. Which means an assertion that science and so called natural laws are somehow more accurate than anything else is like saying one mirage is better than another mirage. When it comes down to it neither hold water. So I respect Andrew's preference for science, but an argument that his preference is somehow more inherently valid or accurate then anything else is ultimately choosing one delusion over another.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 18th, 2014 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Science is founded on natural laws.  Natural laws are these best definition of what counts as convention.

krodha wrote:
Since all conventions are equal in their emptiness (i.e. lack of inherency), what you're choosing between are actually relative truths (rather than conventions). Yet since all relative truths are objects of deluded cognitions per Candrakīrti, you're ultimately and merely exhibiting a bias between figments of ignorance which amount to little more than abstractions. Saying one is more suitable as a "best definition" is therefore little more than a belief, equivalent to the so called beliefs you are attempting to marginalize (at the expense of your own beliefs).


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 18th, 2014 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I prefer scientific convention since it's convention is based on reasoning and proof.

krodha wrote:
The lovely cast of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia making my point, more or less...

"Science is a liar... sometimes"
https://vimeo.com/69970735


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 17th, 2014 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I haven't been denying the conventional.  I've been saying that if you accept buddhist convention why not also accept scientific convention?  I prefer scientific convention since it's convention is based on reasoning and proof.

krodha wrote:
The majority of your allegedly proven scientific convention is inferential information you take on faith (because someone you invest with authority has said it is so). Which does not sound reasonable by your own purported and self-proclaimed standards (of reasoning and proof).


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 17th, 2014 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Causes have no inherent nature. It is only a convention that says past causes give rise to present results. If you are going to use conventions then you might as well use worldly conventions too (and you do).

Consciousness cannot exist without an object. That is, it can only ever said to exist conventionally. It is also a convention to say that there is a stream of consciousness. As we know, conventions are somewhat important but they are not definitive.

Rebirth is not important for me - it isn't meaningful, What is important is direct experience of the definitive aspects of Buddha's teaching.

krodha wrote:
Everything is conventional and everything can only ever be said to exist conventionally, there is nothing which isn't a mere convention, for the very reason that nothing possesses inherent existence. Of course it is a convention to say there is a stream of consciousness, and of course it is a convention to say that past causes give rise to present results... obviously, this is a redundant point and goes without saying. Should have been assumed from the get go. However the fact that everything is a convention does not make everything arbitrary.

The teachings are of course conventional, and the teachings are then subdivided into the categories of definitive and provisional, therefore conventions can be definitive in the context of the teaching. You cannot marginalize everything because it is a convention because you would then be marginalizing everything, and thus would be erring into nihilism. And in your case; simultaneously erring into eternalism (materialist physicalism) and now nihilism.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 17th, 2014 at 1:56 PM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
pensum said:
Okay, then what is the proof for the existence of such formless realms?

krodha wrote:
Formless realms are like the nirvikalpa samādhi (and other attributeless absorption states of that ilk) propagated in certain Hindu traditions and so on. These states necessarily involve the senses being fully retracted into the substratum i.e. consciousness is fully absorbed into itself. States like these are considered to be distractions from the Buddhist perspective, hence why Buddha stated that grasping at these states is cause for rebirth in a formless realm as a Deva etc.

As for proof, well, since it is a completely subjective experience, asking for proof would be akin to asking someone who claims they dreamt of a pink elephant last night to provide proof of that dream. Meaning the proof is in the pudding, access such a state yourself and there is your proof.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 17th, 2014 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: What practices can you do publicly?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Probably best to avoid any type of activity which shows outward signs of being a practitioner in a public place or populated area. There are numerous practices you can do incognito, I go to a park everyday with my son so he can play, and I practice. Guru yoga, refuge and bodhicitta, purification of elements can all be done mentally, really any mantras can, or very quiet under the breath. Then śamatha, vipaśyanā, sems dzins like Malcolm mentioned, there's really a whole host of possibilities. Better to refrain from anything which involves postures, implements, mudras, mantras spoken aloud etc., anything which may draw attention to yourself. I won't even sit in seven point posture but will sit in any relaxed manner where I can keep my back as straight as possible.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 16th, 2014 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Nightmares, Sleep Paralysis, False Awakenings
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also could be a succubus (or succubi) as someone mentioned above. Apparently the succubus is a female entity that sexually assaults men in their dreams.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 15th, 2014 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Nightmares, Sleep Paralysis, False Awakenings
Content:
Jesse said:
I know it's a stupid question, but could this have been an actual demon? It did seem intelligent, but since it was a dream -- obviously I should be wary of thinking such things.

krodha wrote:
This phenomena is common with sleep paralysis and is referred to as "old hag syndrome" by some (though it is hardly a syndrome). I don't think there is such thing as 'demons' per se, but there are indeed entities of various types. The interesting thing with this female entity (that is associated with sleep paralysis) is that encounters with her have been reported for centuries across almost every culture.

In modern times it has been theorized that her appearance is simply the mind accounting for the sensation of tightness in the chest which comes with sleep paralysis. According to this theory, the mind in its hypnagogic state is able to project appearances quite easily, and so this entity is allegedly the result of the mind compensating for a lack of visual stimuli to accompany the tactile sensation in the chest. However the issue that skeptics raise with this theory is the fact that everyone sees the same female entity with the same grotesque features, and if she is merely a fabrication then why would she appear the same to everyone?

Either way though your account is spot on when it comes to the usual themes which are reported. The sheer terror is very common, many say that it begins with an uneasy feeling and escalates from there. It's often said that there is another larger, dark presence which accompanies the old woman which remains uninvolved and merely observes. There are old paintings which depict the hag sitting on someone's chest while a black horse watches in the background.

The only preventative measures I have read about (if you are prone to sleep paralysis episodes) are to avoid sleeping on your back. For some reason sleeping on your back can trigger this phenomena. The other preventative measure is for during the actual event. Since you are paralyzed apart from breathing and the ability to move your eyes, the other alleged method to break the paralysis is to consciously change your breathing pattern. Apparently your body has a go-to pattern of breathing while asleep which it defaults to automatically, this rhythm of breathing while asleep is supposedly constant and the body does not deviate from it. The theory behind this method states that sleep paralysis entails a subtle mind-body duality where the body is in the mode of being asleep, while the mind is awake. Usually the body knows to break its sleep paralysis when the mind wakes up, but in the case of the event you are experiencing there is a miscommunication and the body remains in sleep-mode. Since the mind is awake in sleep paralysis and you retain conscious control of breathing, if you change your pattern of breathing this will signal the body that the mind is awake and will break the paralysis. So perhaps give that a shot.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 15th, 2014 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: karma bully
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Holding a deterministic view of Kamma isn't helpful in my view. In fact, as I mentioned before, I see it as akin to a crime against humanity. If you follow this deterministic interpretation then you can't help but be in a position of indifference and then worse, a moral certitude that blames the victim.

krodha wrote:
I don't see that anyone has suggested determinism in this thread. Determinism would require inherent causes giving rise to inherent effects, however if you understand karma it is understood that this isn't the case. Ironically, you are the one who is advocating for inherent natural laws, which is just about as close to determinism as you're going to get.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 15th, 2014 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: karma bully
Content:
saraswati said:
Indeed, I know my view of karma is not very clear, as I am learning in this thread. But at least the notion of no-self can counteract the karma bullies of the title?

krodha wrote:
An absence of an inherent self does not contradict karma. Karma is actually the reason why there is no inherent entity, the so-called 'self' is simply afflictive patterns of grasping i.e. karmic proliferation, which creates the illusion of an individual.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 14th, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: karma bully
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Actually, I did not mean it, the text that you shared expresses what I wanted to say at the end:

The universe and inhabitants have always been empty, 
the ultimate endowed with the form of the relative.

So good and evil appear to be real, but are illusions.

krodha wrote:
This is a redundant point, and is a given from the standpoint of these teachings. Everything appears to be real, but is ultimately illusory. That doesn't mean you are in recognition of that fact, and you cannot adopt such a view because then you err into nihilism. Even if you are in recognition of that fact, unless you are a fully awakened buddha you are still bound by your karma, and are therefore still bound by relative appearances.

Ignorance and karmic formation are the mother and father of samsara. Recognizing the definitive view free of mind dispels ignorance, however that is just the beginning of the path. The path is a gradual exhaustion of your collective karmic propensities, and you are on the path as long as you have karma to exhaust. Therefore ignoring karmic implications or sweeping relative appearances (such as good and evil) under the rug in the name of their emptiness is a detrimental misstep.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 11th, 2014 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: White Ah and Thigle
Content:
alpha said:
And what happens if one, having already received transmission of  guru yoga, only visualises the white A inside the thigle and resting afterwards ,as it is explained , but without seeing this symbol as the union of all the teachers and teachings ?Will this symbol still produce its function or not ?
I wondered about this a while back , whether one has to assign meaning or project meaning into the symbol in order for the guru yoga to lead to discovery of instant presence.

krodha wrote:
Seems there are provisional and definitive aspects to guru yoga. The provisional or inferential aspect is the visualization of the thigle at the heart and sending-receiving tröndus etc. And then the definitive or direct aspect is the actual state of contemplation [ting nge dzin] i.e. the state of tregchö. The guru is fundamentally your nature, which is why it represents the state of all buddhas, bodhisattvas, vidyādharas and so on.

I would say the projected meaning attributed to the visualized symbol on the outset is helpful to intuit the essential meaning, along with having the practice empowered through the tröndus.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 8th, 2014 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Complete Togal Instruction in Unrestricted New Book
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Heart Drops of Dharmakāya" pays homage to the guru, the lineage, stresses the vital importance of direct introduction from a qualified teacher and cites quite a few preliminaries which are to be practiced prior to even reading about the man ngag sde practices, let alone practicing them (which Loppön is clear in saying transmission is required).

The Old's are not doing any of that, and in fact it sounds as if they have turned their backs on their teacher (who informed them they did not complete the path they claim to have completed) and lineage completely. It's bad news.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 6th, 2014 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Alan Wallace on Dzogchen
Content:
heart said:
Yeah, they should have reprinted a long time ago, it is a shame all the traffic it brought to that strange site.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
Ah interesting, so the book was originally published some time ago and this release next year will be a second edition? I saw on Wallace's site that his translation of the tantra was released in 2004(?) by Wisdom Publications, and the book was titled "The Vajra Heart" or "Vajra Essence". Though I figured the listing was a typo or an old entry which was never updated because I have never seen or heard of anyone having a hard copy book, and Wisdom Publications does not mention it. But the first edition was a limited release then perhaps?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 6th, 2014 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Alan Wallace on Dzogchen
Content:
heart said:
I find it very interesting that he says all his Dzogchen translations (four?) from the Dudjom Tersar will be published next year.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
Wallace's translation of Dudjom Lingpa's "gnas lugs rang byung" [dag snang ye shes drva pa las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje'i snying po] will be one of the publications, finally. An unfinalized version of the translation has been circulating online for some years now, looking forward to this finalized version being available (the text requires a transmission no doubt, but nevertheless nice to see this coming out).

Wallace based his book "Stilling the Mind" on the śamatha and vipaśyanā sections of this tantra. The tantra in its entirety includes the aforementioned preliminary practices along with rushan, tregchö, thögal and bardo instruction... essentially Dudjom Lingpa's A to Z on Dzogpa Chenpo.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 30th, 2014 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Sleep yoga the central practice?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Incredible that teachers like Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche are able to do months worth of practice in a single night due to lack of time limitations in the dream state.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 29th, 2014 at 9:42 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
ConradTree said:
Well most sutra followers would prefer the view of PP sutras, Nagarjuna and Candrakirti (nonarising) to Tsongkhapa (lack of inherent existence).

krodha wrote:
Nāgārjuna, Candrakīrti and the prajñāpāramitā sūtras all point to a lack of inherent existence as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 29th, 2014 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Sleep yoga the central practice?
Content:
ConradTree said:
Does everything ultimately relate to sleep yoga?

1. During sleep yoga, tertons 'travel' to pure lands and receive terma, instructions etc.
2. The progress of all daytime practice, whether mantras or even lhun grub practices, is explicitly assessed by dreams.
3. The practice of the night is a standard feature in Dzogchen practice manuals.
4.  Sleep yoga is explicitly emphasized by Dilgo Khyentse, Jigme Lingpa etc.

So is sleep yoga the highest and most direct practice?

krodha wrote:
Luminosity in sleep is just a natural result of maturation in view. According to Dudjom Lingpa the afflictive consciousness of sentient beings recedes into the ālaya (or substrate) during sleep, but for seasoned practitioners that process starts to dissolve and ignorance in sleep begins to diminish.

There was another dream yoga thread not too long ago where I posted some info from the Dröltig Gongpa Rangdröl which divides the path of no more learning into three stages. In the lesser stage equipoise and post-equipoise are completely mixed, but there is still subtle delusion in sleep. In the medium stage luminosity is stabilized and present both day and night. Regarding the last stage (per Jigme Lingpa): the great yoga of no more learning is also called 'crossing over, without any difference in day or night, to the state of the inseparable three kāyas'. In Dzogpa Chenpo sem sde this stage is referred to as 'the experience of spontaneous presence transcending the boundaries of ordinary contemplation'. These three sub-divisions of the path of no more learning span stages [skt. bhūmi, tib. byang chub sems dpa'i sa] 8 to 16. Ergo at the time of the result, wisdom pervades both waking and sleep evenly.

As stated in the concluding remarks (found in song twenty) of Lama Shabkar's Flight of the Garuda: "When dreaming and being awake are without any difference, that is the time of having actualized the meditation."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
Unity said:
I give up.

thigle said:
Don't forget, most of the critics of you, follow the same subtle focus like you, even if they calling himself Dzogchenpas and tell you: "You're wrong, I'm right." So no worry.

krodha wrote:
Yes, it's a shame the entire forum doesn't reflect your nihilist leanings, thigle.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa's nose
Content:
krodha wrote:
At any rate thigle, you seem to continually confuse the basis, path and result, cutting the path out altogether. Recognition of one's nature does not mean that unfabricated effortlessness suddenly ensues and there is no reason to practice for the sake of stability and so on. You reference the ZZNG as a support for your claims, yet their system is dead set on cultivating stability after recognition, setting up various retreats of different lengths, implementing various practices just to achieve stability in the natural state.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa's nose
Content:
krodha wrote:
The pot calling the kettle black.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Who is Khyentse Yeshi Silvano Namkhai?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Heard through the grapevine that Yeshi has announced there is only one master in the Dzogchen community and has chosen to focus on his personal life for now.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Unity's theory on the nature of mind
Content:
Unity said:
Please ask a qualified teacher about it, someone who you trust.
There's no more that I can say about it.

krodha wrote:
"Designating appearances as the dharmakāya obscures me,
designating whatever appears as mind obscures me,
designating wisdom as mind obscures me"
- The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra Tantra


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
Unity said:
This is not about systems, it's about recognizing the nature of reality. That is what Dzogchen is about.
Perhaps you could ask someone who has realized the nature of reality and the nature of the mind, someone who you trust.
I give up.

krodha wrote:
The view of Vedanta [sanatānadharma] is not synonymous with the view of Dzogchen [buddhadharma]. I am saying your treatment of Dzogchen comes across as a sanatānadharma view, and does not coincide or correspond with the view of Atiyoga in my opinion.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
Unity said:
We are all inside the one and same reality, inside the one and same mind, and we call it 'rigpa', in order to differentiate it from the illusionary personal mind which we call 'sems' in Tibetan, and it is a continuum, there are no holes, no separation. (sorry for being so emphatic, I don't mean to be rude or offensive)

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen does not say this. Advaita Vedanta does perhaps, but again you are conflating systems.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Unity's theory on the nature of mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
Guru Rinpoche also apparently had a twin brother named Yungdrung Donsal who later took the name Tsewang Rigdzin. I've heard there's a Bon practice which incorporates the whole family. But anyway, back to whatever it is we're discussing at this point ha.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Unity's theory on the nature of mind
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The theory that Drenpa Namkha and Nyimai Nyingpo Obarma were Padmasambhava's father and mother is interesting.

Sherab Dorje said:
Which Padmasambhava?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Unity's theory on the nature of mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
The theory that Drenpa Namkha and Nyimai Nyingpo Obarma were Padmasambhava's father and mother is interesting.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2014 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Now I "get it"
Content:
thigle said:
I did not ask you.

krodha wrote:
I'm well aware of that.

thigle said:
..because of grasping. But primordial natural losseness is completely unfabricated. So stability can't be practiced. This is clear, even if knowledge seems to be hidden again. Therefore one have to make a strong decision and the fruit is relative stability. This can take years and decades. If knowledge is relative stable, potentiality begins to unfold. That's the beginning of thögal. True stability without thögal is not possible, because solid vision isn't the exact expression of knowledge. The thin ignorance-layer of solid vision always creates confusion.

STG said:
Everything  that  is  practiced  in  those  paths  is  made  up  by thoughts,  and  their practitioners  never  achieve  the  stage  of acting  without action. [..] Decisions without action has three subdivisions. The first is in general to remove all faults; the second is to explain what the decision without action means; and third is to decide to practice without practising. [..]

krodha wrote:
Stability must be practiced. The fact that primordial wisdom is unfabricated is irrelevant, the path consists of you working with your knowledge of primordial wisdom. Wisdom must be recognized and then familiarized with.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2014 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
ConradTree said:
My Dzogchen teacher didn't teach sitting on a cushion.

If you want to go through sutrayana style contrived meditative states, again, go right ahead.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4704&start=0

krodha wrote:
For most, even in the context of Dzogchen, contrived meditation is a necessary provisional method. In fact the path is termed the "path" because it consists of vacillation between equipoise [mnyam bzhag] and post-equipoise [rjes thob]. "Post equipoise" denoting anytime the practitioner is not resting in direct uncontrived contemplation, which for beginners isn't a matter of choice but is simply the result of instability in the definitive view. Therefore contrived meditations of various kinds may be necessary, and are in most cases.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2014 at 8:38 AM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
haha said:
theanarchist wrote:
You might find this interesting:
https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/03/rainbow-body-and-thusnesss-advise.html?m=1
no it is not interesting. even thought one may attain the samadhi in fire element and enter its samadhi at the time of one's death, such thing cannot be happen (i.e. when the body of the Blessed One had been burned, no ashes or particles were to be seen of what had been skin, tissue, flesh, sinews, and fluid; only bones remained........) nor one should assume that he was cremated by the ordinary fire (i.e. the fire from outside).


Milerepa's iconography indicates, he was definitely a dzogchen practitioner.

krodha wrote:
"Interesting" in the sense that the dissolution of the physical form does not necessarily indicate the body of light. I wasn't making any statements regarding the rest of it. But you're welcome to think it is uninteresting!


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2014 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti on the Chatuskoti
Content:
krodha wrote:
A few from the Mulamadhyamakakarika:

MMK 5.6: If the existing thing (1) (bhava) does not exist, how then would the non-existing thing (2) (abhava) come into existence? And who holds: the existing-and-non-existing (3) thing which does not have the properties of an existing-and-non-existing thing (4)?

MMK 7.20: It is not possible that what has originated either exists or does not exist, Nor that what has not originated either exists or does not exist; this has been demonstrated earlier.

MMK 9.12: For him who does not exist previous to, at the same time, or after seeing, etc. The conception "He exists," "He does not exist," is dissipated.

MMK 15.5: If there is no proof of an existent thing, then a non-existent thing cannot be proved. Since people call the other-existence of an existent thing a "non-existent thing."

MMK 15.6: Those who perceive self-existence and other-existence, and an existent thing and a non-existent thing, Do not perceive the true nature of the Buddha's teaching.

MMK 15.10: "It is" is a notion of eternity. "It is not" is a nihilistic view. Therefore, one who is wise does not have recourse to "being" or "non-being."


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2014 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
theanarchist said:
He supposedly was cremated and left bone relics behind, something that doesn't happen in a case of rainbow body.

krodha wrote:
You might find this interesting:
https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/03/rainbow-body-and-thusnesss-advise.html?m=1

This statement from Malcolm sums up the topic of the link:
"No, but I have heard (from ChNN among others) that the disappearance of the body is not necessarily a sign of the body of light..."


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Andrew is discussing his materialist objective condition theory, not anything which resembles the gzhan stong view.

Andrew108 said:
Well that's a mouthful. And not really my position at all. For example I still hold to dependent origination.

The Dalai Lama says: "Philosophically, and for that matter conceptually, it seems more coherent to maintain a position that accepts the reality not only of the subjective world of the mind, but also of the external objects of the physical world."

krodha wrote:
Dependent origination would mean that the so-called subjective and objective dimensions are merely conventional in nature. For to be dependently originated is to be a conditioned arising, and that which is a conditional arising cannot be said to posses inherency.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Now I "get it"
Content:
thigle said:
Because primordial natural losseness is completely unfabricated. So stability can't be practiced.

krodha wrote:
In the beginning stability must be practiced, and practiced diligently. It is said that initially the practitioner chases the meditation and later once stability has occurred, the meditation chases the practitioner. Without achieving that stability though, there is no hope of becoming stable. Your nature is always stable, you however are not. So it is a matter of familiarization and continually returning to that knowledge. Effortlessness comes in time.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Now I "get it"
Content:
thigle said:
So you've "found" some-thing inside of this experience?

krodha wrote:
That is how it works, your nature is not discovered elsewhere.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 26th, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
smcj said:
I stand by the notion that there is an objective condition that exist independently of the perceiver. This objective condition would also have characteristics that are entirely natural to it. Lack of established identity is one such characteristic. Non-fixation is another.
I agree. I habitually quote Khenpo Tsultrim in regards to Shentong:

This non-conceptual Wisdom Mind* is not the object of the conceptualizing process and so is not negated by Madhyamaka reasoning. Therefore, it can be said to be the only thing that has absolute and true existence.

It is one school's orthodox position. But I must admit there is a bit of troll in me that enjoys it.



*He is very specifically NOT talking about the Mind Only school here btw, but something deeper.

krodha wrote:
Andrew is discussing his materialist objective condition theory, not anything which resembles the gzhan stong view.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 26th, 2014 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
Unity said:
This great pure mind which pervades everything was called Parabrahman, Rigpa, God, Allah, and many other things.

krodha wrote:
"If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen. 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly."
- Lopon Tenzin Namdak


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 26th, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Title: ChNN and Changchub Dorje's Teachers
Content:
krodha wrote:
Seems that Changchub Dorje's teachers Adzom Drukpa and Nyala Pema Düddul are referenced often in Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche's teachings. However Changchub Dorje's third teacher Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen is not mentioned as often, if at all. All three were undoubtably very profound teachers and tertöns... curious why Norbu Rinpoche chooses to focus primarily on the cycles of Adzom Drukpa and Nyala Pema Düddul when he gives teachings associated with Changchub Dorje's teachers?

Is it that Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen wasn't as influential for Changchub Dorje? Or does Shardza Rinpoche being a Bön lama have anything to do with it? Can't see that being the case when Norbu Rinpoche is so good about focusing on the essence of the teachings and straying from sectarian politics.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 25th, 2014 at 7:02 AM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
Unity said:
I'm claiming to have recognized the nature of mind.

krodha wrote:
Recognition of the nature of mind is simply a recognition event, it is an important cornerstone of the teaching and the beginning of the definitive path, but it does not constitute the result [buddhahood] by any means.

This is assuming you actually have recognized mind-essence, which may or may not be the case, either way, there are many here who have and many more who will. Most importantly, you should take this up with your teacher and heed his or her advice regarding the type of conduct you should exhibit in the wake of (or while aiming to actualize) such insight.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 25th, 2014 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: Breaking samaya if one talks about rigpa?
Content:
Unity said:
I'm just trying to use the terminology that the people seem to understand who I'm trying to communicate with.
I use the term "rigpa" here only for you, because I thought you understand it.
Would you understand other words better, e.g. Parabrahman? That means the same as Rigpa, but it's a Sanskrit word, not Tibetan.

krodha wrote:
Parabrahman and rigpa [vidyā] are not synonymous. You are (i) conflating systems and (ii) are taking a perennialist approach to these teachings.

Unity said:
By the way, "dzogchen" means "great wisdom", it's not exactly a trademark, it has a very long and ancient tradition, unfortunately people seem to forget that.
It's really not about "usurping terminology", I'm just trying to communicate with you, to express my thoughts to you in a way that I hope you can understand.
People in this forum seem to be a bit jumpy about "their" terminology, they seem to claim it to be their own, not to be used by "outsiders".
Looks like a sect to me.

krodha wrote:
No one ever said that Dzogchen was a trademark, and I don't think it has slipped anyone's mind that it is a longstanding ancient tradition. That being said, the system surrounding Dzogchen is precisely that, a system, and therefore has its own methods, practices, terms and so on. There's no need to insert or import concepts from other systems for various reasons. The system works, the lineages are unbroken, and what isn't broke doesn't need fixing.

If you're a fan of perennialistic soups that is all well and good, but in this forum assertions of that nature will undoubtably face critique. Not out of stubbornly adhering to fixed views like religious fundamentalists, but because the majority of people here find value in the teaching as it is, and the integrity of the teaching should be maintained.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 24th, 2014 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Using Astral Projection for Dharma Practice
Content:
krodha wrote:
There are many who are naturally inclined to have lucid dreams and/or so-called astral experiences, doesn't mean it is pure vision though. Some teachers actually urge practitioners to err on the side of caution while dreaming because lesser beings can present themselves as realized beings. Definitely something to discuss with your teacher.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 at 1:29 PM
Title: Re: Guru Pema Tho-threng-tsal
Content:
kirtu said:
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Padmasambhava: With Mandarava, he then returned to Oddiyana, but was recognized, and burned on a sandalwood pyre. After some time, they were found seated on a lotus in a lake of sesame oil

krodha wrote:
Lake Rewalsar i.e. Tso Pema is said to be the lake which formed as a result of this event. Lama Wangdor built a giant Guru Rinpoche statue there which overlooks the lake, curious if the statue depicts this Thöthreng tsal form of Padmasambhava.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Nonduality and the two truths?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Some entries from "The Princeton Dictionary Of Buddhism": In Madhyamaka, conventional truths are all phenomena other than emptiness ( SUNYATA ), which is the ultimate truth.

seeker242 said:
I can't help but to think of the heart sutra when reading this, specifically the part where it says "phenomena is emptiness, emptiness is phenomena." Which appears to say there is no such thing as "phenomena other than emptiness" to begin with. But if conventional truth = phenomena other than emptiness and there really is no phenomena other than emptiness, then it would follow that there is no conventional truth either? Does Madhyamaka disagree with what it says in the heart sutra? Hmm.


krodha wrote:
Yeah, that Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism statement is quite misleading, the conventional is precisely what is empty. The ultimate truth is simply the non-arising of the conventional.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 21st, 2014 at 11:25 AM
Title: Re: Nonduality and the two truths?
Content:
krodha wrote:
If Madhyamaka declared that the two truths were inherently valid, then Nāgārjuna wouldn't have made statements like this:

"Since the jīnas have stated nirvana is the sole truth, at that time, what wise person would think 'the rest is not the opposite'".
-- Yuktiṣaṣṭika

In the ultimate sense Madhyamaka does not even uphold a single truth, since an ultimate cannot be truly established. The entirety of the principles found in the teaching are conventional and/or relative. Which means they are unreal.

The main issue is that this principle will never make sense unless the difference between "advaya" and "advaita" is properly understood. Attempting to reconcile a non-dual"ity" in general, in the context of the buddhadharma, is coming from a flawed approach to begin with. In Buddhism the conditioned and the unconditioned are "non-dual" [advaya], an epistemic insight, but this is not suggesting an ontological "non-duality" [advaita]. It simply means a proper knowledge of the so-called "conditioned" will reveal that it is primordially "unconditioned". The dharmatā of a given dharmin is not found apart from said dharmin.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 21st, 2014 at 8:38 AM
Title: Re: Nonduality and the two truths?
Content:
seeker242 said:
So some Buddhist traditions are said to be "nondual" traditions. But at the same time people make distinctions of ultimate truth vs conventional truth, AKA the two truths. But the very notion of "two truths" is itself a dualistic view is it not? If there are two different truths, how can there be nonduality when nonduality means the two are really not different??


krodha wrote:
Non-dual [advaya] in the buddhadharma means a freedom from existence and non-existence. But the "two truths" are merely a conventional or pedagogical methodology, not a statement of inherent truth. If the claim was that there is ultimately two truths, then I would understand your objection, but ultimately, both ultimate and conventional truths are conventional designations, so there is no contradiction.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 20th, 2014 at 11:14 AM
Title: Re: Jigme Lingpa's mystical pranayama experience
Content:
ConradTree said:
I meant what the quote means.

krodha wrote:
Ah haha


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 20th, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Title: Re: Jigme Lingpa's mystical pranayama experience
Content:
ConradTree said:
What does Jigme Lingpa mean?

krodha wrote:
jigs med is "fearless" I believe. gling pa is an honorary title given to tertöns, but "gling" [skt. dvīpa] translates to something like "island", or continent; island; location [as of a monastery] according to Jeffery Hopkins Sanskrit-Tibetan-English dictionary.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 20th, 2014 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: HUM or HUNG?
Content:
Fa Dao said:
I have noticed that some Dzogchen teachers use HUM while others use HUNG..is there really a difference energetically?

krodha wrote:
I'd say it's best to go with whichever was used in the transmission you received, but ultimately it doesn't make much difference. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu just recently told the story of Sakya Pandita and the yogi who mispronounced "vajrakilaya" as "chili chilaya", read that story sometime if you get a chance, puts things in perspective with discrepancies like this.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 19th, 2014 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Those who adopt Buddhist views of the pre-eminence of mind (and I have done this), are not able to let go of subtle concepts regarding mind. Since they cannot let go of these subtle concepts regarding mind, they are not able to progress. That is the long and short of it. If you understand consciousness is located in the brain then go with that. The sooner you are able to have a direct experience of reality not mediated through concepts then the better you'll be.

krodha wrote:
Those who adopt materialist views of the pre-eminence of the brain (and you have done this), are not able to let go of subtle concepts regarding mind. Since they cannot let go of these subtle concepts regarding mind, they are not able to progress. That is the long and short of it. If you understand consciousness is merely conventional, and its location is likewise conventional, then go with that. The sooner you are able to have a direct experience of reality (which is also a mere convention) not mediated through concepts (like the mind being located in the brain) then the better you'll be.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 19th, 2014 at 2:27 PM
Title: Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Content:
Jayarava said:
If one kind of substance is wrong, how can two kinds be right?

shel said:
Perhaps two wrongs make a right in this case. Jeeprs?

krodha wrote:
And three rights make a left... per Lil' Wayne.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 18th, 2014 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Freedom from extremes means not mediating reality through concepts. It is a direct experience where concepts are not applied. If you have the idea that you need to realize 'freedom from extremes' then our intellectual tendencies will tend to imagine that this is something they either have realized or should realize, or is a position they should promote and defend.

The term mind is redundant. Useless. Because the practice is the practice of not mediating reality through concepts. The concept - 'it can't be found' is as useless as any other concept - as useless as the contradictory idea that 'it doesn't exist but it exists'.

I guess this thread has gone way off topic. The reason I have posted so much is because I think a realist/materialist view is more conducive to this practice of 'direct experience not mediated through concepts'. The tendency for westerners is that they think they should take on wholesale a belief system that is actually alien to them. They needn't bother with that. Buddhism will fail in the West if it stays as it is. It is failing. The Dalai Lama's dialogue with western science has been really useful.

In the end you have this cognition - just that - and that cognition is not separate from reality. It belongs in reality. If you see this reality as belonging to mind, as being in the mind, then reality is resting on a concept that stands between you and direct experience.

krodha wrote:
Freedom from extremes means that so-called conditioned phenomena are recognized to be fabrications of ignorance. Like Nāgārjuna's example where he discusses the unreality of the world, paraphrased; like a child who is born and dies in a dream, this world is also unborn, having never truly arisen in the first place. So the world is nothing which has ever occurred in the way we think it has, it is nothing that has originated, nothing that abides, nothing which will cease, and so it is free from origination and therefore free from extremes.

Your views on the rest of the points you mentioned are equally inaccurate in my opinion, the materialist view is so limiting.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 17th, 2014 at 8:50 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
You have claimed that. I will tell you how. You have said that if we see a mountain then there are two aspects. The internal perception of the mountain and the external manifestation.

krodha wrote:
Please cite where I've said anything remotely close to that.

Andrew108 said:
In your view, both the internal perception and the external manifestation are linked to karmic traces. In the first instance the perception of the mountain is linked to the karmic traces inherent in the mind stream of the individual and in second instance the manifestation of the mountain externally, is linked to the karmic traces inherent in the mindstreams of many individual streams of consciousness. So in both cases the mountain is a subjective creation. The only difference being the difference between one subjectivity and many subjectivities.

krodha wrote:
The fact that these things are linked with karmic traces should be quite telling regarding the nature of their manifestation. You are again leaping to compare and contrast these explanations to your materialist view, which is tantamount to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. At any rate though, your continual conclusion that these matters somehow resolve into subjective experiences in any inherent sense (which is the only sense you are capable of working with) is an asinine notion.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The point that I have made again and again is that you can't tell reality how it should be. Whilst reality has characteristics it would be wrong to say that these characteristics are only subjective.

krodha wrote:
No one has claimed that there is a reality which is only subjective. The idea that anyone has suggested that any sort of reality is solely subjective is your own notion. A strawman through and through.

Andrew108 said:
There are characteristics that are also objective - that exist independent of the subject who observes them.

krodha wrote:
Conventionally, sure.

Andrew108 said:
This is not just a conceptual idea.

krodha wrote:
Fortunately, it is just a concept, though it undoubtably appears as much more than a mere concept to those entrenched in confusion.

Andrew108 said:
It is a scientific fact.

krodha wrote:
You're reaching with that one.

Andrew108 said:
It is a truth that is as 'normal' as you can get.

krodha wrote:
According to you.

Andrew108 said:
Accepting that fact is the start of genuine integration.

krodha wrote:
Far from it. Though perhaps it is the start of further integration, or more accurately; "entrenchment" in delusion.

Andrew108 said:
In terms of how to integrate I would say that whilst reality has characteristics it does not have a theory about itself. So why have a theory about it? Why not just be what it is? This is effortless integration.

krodha wrote:
Yes, well, in the throes of ignorance theory becomes mistaken for "how it is". Your alleged "how it is" is pure theory, pure concept.

Andrew108 said:
What you are saying is that you should develop a view based on centuries old reasoning and then apply that to your experience in order to liberate yourself from the 'normal'. I think that is going about things the wrong way. I think that is deluded.

krodha wrote:
If you do not have the wherewithal to see how these principles apply to your direct experience precisely in this immediacy, then that is your own limitation to work through. There is nothing archaic about it, the only "centuries old" decrepit reasoning being displayed here is the material physicalism you champion.

Andrew108 said:
I am a Buddhist.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2014 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I am in agreement with a lot of what you say. I'll write some more latter this evening. There is a thread on psychotherapy and Dharma. In that thread Jeeprs posted that he saw realization and realized individuals as 'supernormal'. I would agree with this. That these individuals are highly integrated. One wonders how some one who constantly reified a subjective experience could be integrated at all?

krodha wrote:
Because again these conclusions of yours are product of your view. You are taking certain notions and attempting to place them into your own conceptual model, in hopes of creating (what you consider to be) a logical explanation. And the only way they are going to fit with your model is if you peg them as "subjective experiences" in an inherent sense (such a notion has no basis in the teachings, only the mind of Andrew). However in the actual context of the system there is no conflict. In the true view of the system there is no need to relegate these occurrences to inherently existent subjective experiences, no need to scratch one's head wondering how these individuals can be integrated, these are the residual conflicts of your own ideas, not the system. Why is that? Because the system can allow for conventional and ultimate standpoints and so on. Aspects of the teaching that your materialist view utterly lacks, and so you face contradictions and conflicts within your view, yet you act as if you're encountering conflicts apart from your own projections.

To repeat what I wrote in my last post; your contention that these systems are reifying subjective experiences in the way you are suggesting is pure delusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 at 6:08 PM
Title: Re: Ken Wilber - Towards a fourth turning of the wheel of Dh
Content:
krodha wrote:
Ken's view of Buddhism is mostly his own fabrications and misinterpretations in general, so whatever turning or reinventing of any wheel he is involved in is undoubtably complete b.s.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I know you posted a lot but this small sentence caught my attention. For ages I thought the same as you. I thought that if I had enough realization I would be able to lift heavy weights knowing full well that they are concepts. But the truth doesn't work like that and this is typical of the trap of subjectivity that Buddhists sometimes find themselves in.

krodha wrote:
You do realize that Buddhists never champion a view of subjectivity at the expense of objectivity, right? This alleged "trap of subjectivity" (you are referring to) is simply a conclusion that you have come to by way of deductive reasoning within your own conceptual model. No one has ever advocated for a solely subjective experience though, nor have they advocated for solely objective, both, neither, etc. Just because objectivity lacks inherent existence doesn't mean that everything is subjective. If objectivity is scrutinized, subjectivity receives the same scrutiny.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 14th, 2014 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Madhyamaka vs Dzogchen - Is this right?
Content:
ConradTree said:
There is no dependent origination in Dzogchen.

Dzogchen has kadag, lhun grub and thugs rje.

krodha wrote:
In the system of Dzogchen, dependent origination begins with non-recognition. The conditioned phenomena of avidyā arise dependently. It may be true that from the standpoint of vidyā, dependent origination is seen for what it is, but as long as there is no recognition then appearance is reified in an afflictive way and dependent origination applies.

This is the specific model of dependent origination [twelve nidānas] which is pertinent in this case; one fails to recognize the appearances of the basis to be self-originated wisdom display, delusion [avidyā] ensues, and the remaining eleven links follow accordingly.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 13th, 2014 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Madhyamaka vs Dzogchen - Is this right?
Content:
ConradTree said:
Madhyamaka........................................ Dzogchen
freedom from extremes.......................... freedom from extremes
dependent origination.............................kadag, lhun grub and thugs rje
two truths...........................................discards two truths
no tantric features............................direct introduction, dream yoga, dark retreat, description of death process, description of empty clarity etc.

krodha wrote:
Madhyamaka ultimately discards the two truths as well, they are just a pedagogical methodology. Dzogchen also has dependent origination, which proliferates beginning with avidyā just like Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka uses analysis as its main praxis and doesn't work with energy, so it doesn't work with lhun grub.

A proper Madhyamaka view is quite helpful with setting up correct inferential views in Dzogchen though, take this from Rigdzin Chökyi Drakpa for example:

"On the path of tregchö, all the rigidity of mind's clinging to an 'I' where there is no 'I', and a self where there is no self, is cut through with Madhyamaka Prasangika reasoning and the resulting conviction that an 'I' or a 'self' does not exist. Then, by examining where mind arises, dwells and ceases, you become certain of the absence of any true reality."


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 13th, 2014 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Why do you think it is a good posting? Do you trust Malcolm's intelligence more than your own? He is saying space arises from consciousness. So space is a product of consciousness. You don't see any logical difficulties with that?

krodha wrote:
The logic will never make sense to you due to the fact that your reasoning is predicated on the various presuppositions of materialism and physicality that you deem to be (solely) valid. You are approaching these notions from a completely different frame of reference, and you refuse to come halfway because you insist your frame of reference is the only logical way to view (or approach) these matters. So if you refuse to come halfway in an earnest sense, and these principles are certainly unable to go halfway to you (though they try, by citing aspects of your own view), then the impasse you are constantly faced with (which you interpret as unreasonable views failing to live up to your convictions of accuracy and truth) is perpetually inevitable.

The logical difficulty you perceive is simply the result of fixating on a particular paradigm of thought, the paradigm is treated as an objective absolute truth. So when people challenge your paradigm you believe they are challenging your reality, and it appears ridiculous to you, which leads to your logical difficulties i.e. things which don't match your allegedly concrete and accurate view of reality.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
It's not an empirical investigation. It's an investigation using logical inference and reasoning. So it is reflective.

There is definite benefit in doing this type of investigation. It leads to an appreciation of the attitude of non-fixation. So it is leading somewhere rather than giving the practitioner an accurate description of the world. It's heuristic.

krodha wrote:
Empirical means the investigation depends upon experiment or observation, it is derived from (and driven by) direct experience. If I asked a friend to go find a hammer in the garage but could not remember where it was exactly, logical inference and reasoning alone (on their part) would not cut it, they would have to evaluate and observe their experience. Sure there may be a degree of logical inference, deduction, reasoning, for example the hammer will not be located in the gas tank of the lawn mower, the mind will not be in there either. But unless there is an empirical investigation there will be no insightful value derived in the process. A logical conclusion is insufficient in the context of these types of analytical meditation. It goes without saying that investigations are meant to lead somewhere.

As for the "attitude of non-fixation" we have always disagreed on that. Attitudes are adopted by mind, and as a provisional method such an attitude may be acceptable, but ultimately non-fixation is not an attitude. Non-fixation is ultimately the result of recognizing mind essence, because the illusory reference point collapses.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
No one has suggested that matter arises out of consciousness.

Malcolm said:
In fact, space arises from consciousness, and the four elements arise from space. This is a universal explanation of the arising of matter in Dharm texts.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps I should have tacked "inherently" onto the end of my statement. I wasn't discounting the fact that there is a posited succession of arisings in a conventional sense. Only addressing Andrew's proclivity to place these statements in the context of absolute truth or explanations of real processes in his inherently existent 'physical universe'.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
To clarify; (i) having a basis in consciousness, and (ii) arising from consciousness.

The latter is a reductionist position which is treating consciousness as a fundamental source. The former is simply giving credence to the interrelated implications that consciousness suggests, and how those inferred implications become seemingly valid and referential faculties, characteristics, aspects, states, entities and so on when viewed through the aperture of potent confusion which invests them with legitimacy.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
So the teachings are heuristic? If so then fair enough. But there should be some transparency, because there are many practitioners who are invested in the belief that matter arises out of consciousness.

asunthatneversets said:
No one has suggested that matter arises out of consciousness.

Andrew108 said:
Yes, you are right. I should have said there are many practitioners who are invested in the belief that matter has a basis in consciousness.

krodha wrote:
Having a basis in consciousness, and arising from consciousness, are two entirely different things.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Location of mind in this practice is referring to mental consciousness or at least it is referring to cognition. It is quite obvious that if you say to your teacher that you consider mental consciousness / cognition to be located in the brain that you will be deemed to have made an error. Recognition of mind essence or nature of mind is a different topic.

krodha wrote:
It certainly is not a different topic. Why do you think students are urged to find the location of mind, or find the mind in general? This an empirical investigation that must conclude with a definitive recognition. Sentient beings are under the impression that they are endowed with a mind which has a fixed location, or a core essence which makes it an enduring entity called 'mind'. These teachings are acknowledging that notion, and are saying if you do indeed have this mind which corresponds to your notions of it, then you should have no problem locating it. Find that mind, find that location. Do so empirically, divorced of your preconceived notions, work with your direct experience, and find this thing you call your mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
So the teachings are heuristic? If so then fair enough. But there should be some transparency, because there are many practitioners who are invested in the belief that matter arises out of consciousness.

krodha wrote:
No one has suggested that matter arises out of consciousness.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
This is similar to the Emperors' New Clothes. It takes a lot of belief to uncover the deep and profound. That is part of the problem. For example take the title of this topic - the injunction is that you can't progress in Mahamudra until you accept that mind (in this case mental consciousness) has no location. So you need to adopt the belief of non-locality of mental consciousness in order to progress. But this is just a belief. And further more it is a belief that goes against what has been proven otherwise.

krodha wrote:
The practice of attempting to find the location of mind is not one which concludes with a belief. If one merely adopts a belief that the mind has no location then this is failing to recognize the nature of mind. Recognition of mind essence is not a belief, it is a lived discovery, a concrete and experiential epiphany. This is the point of departure which substantiates the rift in understanding which is carrying this discussion.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Lhathong
Content:
krodha wrote:
Thigle, you are comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand you're pontificating about meditation executed through the veil of mind versus the non-meditation of resting in uncontrived dharmatā. For the most part you are preaching to the choir, but are acting as of you're expounding some profound species of inside knowledge we are all unfamiliar with. You are being quite presumptuous and are underestimating the caliber of practitioner who frequents these forums. As much as you'd like to believe it, the type of misunderstandings you are referencing are not found here often. And if you perceive that they are (occurring often), then you are reading through the foggy lense of your own misunderstanding.

The aspect which isn't making sense is your contention that respecting intimate instructions is indicative of confusing mind for dharmatā, as if those who actually know dharmatā would be willing to throw everything out the window and nihilistically disavow tradition etc., like you are. This is a misguided assertion, which does not escape mind (or 'grasping' as you put it) any more than embracing tradition does (both are equally relative, but one actually serves a purpose and function). Which means you have really only succeeded in attaching to an opposite extreme in view, and are parading it as somehow more accurate than the views you are attempting to defame, these are games of mind. An accurate knowledge of dharmatā does not require the rejection of tradition, culture, principle, praxis, or anything of that nature. The ultimate nature does not contradict conventional applications. For the ultimate is simply an accurate wisdom which directly knows the nature of that which the conventional and relative appear to suggest.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
jeeprs said:
Thanks! Very kind of you to say so. I will say more later, better let someone else have a go.

krodha wrote:
Doubt too many want to have a go. Addressing Andrew's vapid materialist scientific rhetoric is on par with talking to a wall.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 12th, 2014 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Lhathong
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Why the bump?

krodha wrote:
Simon, your bump has not received the Mustang Cave seal of approval.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Lhathong
Content:
Andrew108 said:
But I know those who hold a scholarly view will call you a heretic or some such thing. Then they will try to say that you know nothing and have no experience. Or that you are Neo-Advaita or New Age.

thigle said:
Just projections. Look around in this forum. Lot of Advaita/Neo-Advaita/New-Age views. Everything is "nondual" on dharmawheel. Look at this topic. They not even know why they want to ban something. This secret society'nes in the context of buddhist teachings, is a tantric tibetan illness.

krodha wrote:
I took a quick glance and there hasn't been any (Neo) Advaita or new-age "non-dual" views expressed on this thread thus far. Nor has anyone advocated for secret societies.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Simon E. said:
The average human brain has over 80 billion neurons. That is a huge number. All of these neurons can function.
On a point of order.. you have quoted Simon E...but I did not make that statement..

PadmaVonSamba said:
Sorry...my mistake.
Your brain made that statement, about eight posts ago...

krodha wrote:
Andrew made that statement. Simon's response made it appear as of he (Simon) made the statement due to a slight html error. Simon is clarifying that the statement is not his, because it isn't.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 7:05 PM
Title: Re: Lhathong
Content:
thigle said:
It's good to see such reactions like from my academic/tantric friend. Because this is always the reaction, if someone shows authentic teachings and not just tantric or academical appetizer, sold as "Dzogchen", because the sect want's you and you and you. Why they holding authentic primordial nonpractice teachings secret, has very mundane reasons. I have nothing to do with their artificial drama; no more in this life. It's for everybody. It must be for everybody, if you are a Buddhist or not. Even for beings in hell.

krodha wrote:
This is always the reaction from those who champion the conduct you are exhibiting as well.

You also haven't shown any authentic teachings per se. Giving a brief summary of practices and then relaying your own misinterpretations of their praxis isn't showing "authentic teachings", which is precisely why these practices should be given to a student from a qualified teacher. It's one thing to discuss the teachings themselves, the various points and views which apply to the system in the context being explored, but an entirely different thing to give examples of practice and then proceed to provide your own conclusions regarding their result. That is reckless. Not even the teacher does that, for the very reason that it defeats the theme and purpose of empirical investigation. The skillful means is to allow the discovery or realization to flower in the mind stream of the practitioner through proper application of the intimate instructions... not to plant concepts of the result prior to the individual engaging in the sadhāna, that is the opposite of skillful.

At any rate, my teacher just yesterday addressed this erroneous concept that the teachings are kept secret for the mundane reasons you are alluding to. The idea that the teachings are divisively withheld so that the teacher can recruit more students is patently false.

When it comes down to it, it's ultimately neither here nor there, if certain individuals have the karma to encounter your interpretations and buy into it then that is their own limitation to work through. Your cavalier attitude regarding this whole matter is concerning to say the least though. It is true the teachings are for any and everyone, but within the right setting.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Lhathong
Content:
thigle said:
asunthatneversets, you may read and study a lot about Dzogchen and you may know a lot of tibetan terms, but your academical, religious and sectarian point of view "on" Dzogchen, isn't Dzogchen. Better you stop distracting the invisible reader by seeding doubt and mixing up everything.

krodha wrote:
This is projection of the shadow, meaning; you are addressing your own conduct.

thigle said:
I'm a buddhist, and buddhism is for everybody, even for non-buddhists. This teachings are true, not faked. They are self-secret, therefore it needs nobody to protect. You understand, or not. Better one cannot understand the teachings, before one misunderstand the teachings, because of  "mixing up" everything or academical speculations. Where's Kalden Y. when one needs him...

krodha wrote:
Well, you're a big boy or girl (whichever you may be) Thigle, and can make your own choices, which you are, so have at it. I will say however that your statements in this thread are inaccurate in my opinion, for whatever that is worth, which isn't much according to those in your corner. And that is okay, someone has to carry the degenerate age forward, you appear quite enthusiastic to do so.

Vajrayāna is "self-secret" because it carries various meanings - outer, inner, secret, innermost secret - the principles are cloaked in esoteric symbology, which means it appears one way to an outsider, but means something specific to the practitioner. That is self-secrecy. Self-secrecy can also mean the definitive meaning is only truly understood by those who actualize it, but that fact does not mean you are free to broadcast and parade the practices openly to anyone. Why do you think the material which contains some of the points you addressed concludes with "samaya, gya, gya, gya"? If you have transmission for the teaching you are referencing it is profoundly secret, and you maintain that secrecy in body, speech and mind. At any rate, you aren't listening to me (or anyone for that matter) anyway, because you already know better than we, so carry on Thigle.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Lhathong
Content:
krodha wrote:
Thigle, aside from my opinion that your ideas do not correspond with the proper views of sems sde, klong sde and man ngag sde, you should not be posting these semblances of practice instruction in this forum or elsewhere on the web. Especially not with your own commentary and interpretations of their meaning and respective results. It is very bad form. There are ways to discuss these teachings without citing the practices, and you would do well to refine your methods of interaction so you are not broadcasting intimate instructions to any one with an internet connection.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Lhathong
Content:
thigle said:
Maybe for CNN and his followers. But I have nothing to do with this teachings. Semde and longde are just preliminaries in the context of the direct-introduction. There's a subtle artificial focus by most of the semde/longde introductions. That isn't yermed. Stop mixing up "states of mind" with the natural state.

krodha wrote:
Dbyer med occurs at the third level of the fourfold sems sde methodologies known as the four rnal byors and/or the four ting nge dzins. The third aspect of those is nyis med and/or mnyam nyid, respectively, and both are aspects of one another. Both also denote the non-dual insight, or the 'inseprability', that the term dbyer med suggests in the context of contemplation [tib. ting nge dzin, skt. samādhi]. So they are not states of mind, but are the species of insight which results from recognizing mind essence [sems nyid], meaning; the knowledge of the natural state ensues from that insight.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 at 3:01 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I didn't say consciousness emerges from matter. You are projecting. I said consciousness emerges from reality.

krodha wrote:
'Reality', 'life'... the vague cornucopia of terms which could mean any and everything.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Well this is the argument that Thrangu Rinpoche uses in 'Vivid Awareness' a commentary on Khenpo Gangshar's teaching. :

"When you touch the soles of your feet, the mind jumps there. If you wiggle your finger, then at that point the mind seems to be in the finger, but if you do something else, the mind goes elsewhere. The mind seems to be throughout the body, but exactly where is uncertain - it does not dwell in any fixed location. The mind seems to go wherever you experience a sensation, so you cannot say with certainty that it is in either the head or the heart."

The argument is saying that there is no exact location for mind within the body.

krodha wrote:
Well, his assertion is quite different than how you are painting it. He is pointing to the fact that you cannot pin down a definitive location for mind. Not that mind goes to specific locations within the body when it's supposed to reside in the brain. Your critique is alluding to, and presupposing a few notions which reflect your view; primarily the treatment of mind as an entity of sorts which is traveling to various locations in a body which contains it. Which is "the ghost in the shell" idea; the body as a material vessel for a non-material mind, etc. Common notions which result from the type of view you champion.

I'm not saying that the mind cannot reside within a body in a conventional sense, that is certainly a rational view to uphold in that context. But you are not suggesting a model that is merely conventional, you are advocating for an accurate explanation for what you perceive to be an actual state of affairs. And you're welcome to that opinion of course.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The argument given as to why cognition is not located in the brain is that cognition jumps to where there is a sensation. So when we hurt our toe the argument says that it seems that cognition is in the toe and not in the brain. This is a very very weak argument given what modern science knows about cognition.

krodha wrote:
If I thought that was a valid example of an argument given in opposition of brain based cognition I would dismiss it as well. Luckily that argument dismisses itself because it is awful, and is an embarrassment to anything which would remotely resemble a valid argument against cognition being located in the brain.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 8th, 2014 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
It is the same as trying to pin down whether the chicken or the egg came first. If consciousness is allegedly located in the brain or skull, yet brains and skulls (including your own skull which supposedly contains your own brain) appear to consciousness, then there's no way to make any definitive statements as to what comes first.

And when it comes down to it neither can be found apart from conventionality, so attempting to make a definitive statement regarding either is choosing to be bias about one of two equally unfounded illusions as it is.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 8th, 2014 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
Andrew is a die hard proponent of physicalist materialism, so the notion of consciousness being anywhere but the brain is no doubt blasphemous in that context.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 28th, 2014 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: "Avoiding extremes"
Content:
Gwenn Dana said:
It comes with the danger of normativity of the mediocre, condemning what is different.

krodha wrote:
This isn't what a freedom from extremes is getting at. Avoiding mediocrity or condemning what is different has nothing to do with it, you're projecting your own interpretation onto this notion. As stated above, a freedom from extremes means there is nothing findable that (i) exits, (ii) does not exist, (iii) both exists or doesn't exists, (iv) neither exists nor doesn't exist. That is the four extremes, and the 'middle way' is simply a way to denote that species of insight, however the middle cannot truly be found either.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: "Avoiding extremes"
Content:
krodha wrote:
'Extremes' means existence and non-existence (also both and neither).


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Who are the best teachers of non-duality?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
That seems like a possibly arbitrary distinction to me, the whole point (for instance) of Madhyamaka logic to my understanding is that freedom from extremes is what leads to a "non dual' state - the exhaustion of dualistic concepts.

Sherab Dorje said:
Not really arbitrary because if you define non-duality as  overcoming the subject-object dichotomy then where do the four extremes come into play?

krodha wrote:
The four extremes come into play because 'non-dual' in the context of the buddhadharma is denoting the inseparability of dharmin and dharmatā. The non-arising (unconditioned) nature of conditioned phenomena is never found apart from the conditioned phenomena in question. When that non-arising is recognized then it is intimately known that phenomena never arose in the first place and are thus free from extremes. Only so called conditioned entities can accord with the extremes of existence, non-existence, both or neither.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Who are the best teachers of non-duality?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The pertinent difference being 'non-dual' [tib. gnyis med, skt. advaya], versus 'non-duality' [tib. gnyis med nyid, skt. advaita]. The former is the proper view of non-dual for the buddhadharma (freedom from extremes), the latter is what you find in the sanātanadharma and the neo-nondual spin-offs.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 27th, 2014 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Who are the best teachers of non-duality?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Again, like I said earlier on:  WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM NON-DUALITY?

Non-duality of what for crying out loud???

Malcolm said:
It depends on what you mean by nondual. There are three kinds of non dualism. One is cognitive non dualism, i.e., everything is consciousness, for, like example Yogacara. The second is ontological nondualism, i.e. everything is brahman, god, etc. The third is epistemic nondualism, i.e., being, non-being and so on cannot be found on analysis and therefore do not ultimately exist.

The indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned is based on the third. We have only experience of conditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena like space are known purely through inference since they have no characteristics of their own to speak of. When we analyze phenomena, what do we discover? We discover suchness, an unconditioned state, the state free from extremes. That unconditioned state cannot be discovered apart from conditioned phenomena, therefore, we can say with confidence that the conditioned and the unconditioned are nondual. The trick is which version of nonduality you are invoking. This nonduality of the conditioned and unconditioned cannot apply to the first two nondualities for various reasons.

krodha wrote:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&p=186276&hilit=+epistemic#p186276


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: Lhathong
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Śamatha always implies the presence of an artificial point of reference, because clarity is being reified into a substantiated substratum.

monktastic said:
Much like "vipashyana", the word "shamatha" is used in more than one context. TUR again:
In rigpa, the intrinsic steadiness is shamatha and the awake quality is vipashyana.
The way the words are being used here, it is not that shamatha collapses and yields to vipashyana to give the true meditation, but that the two are conjoined.

As masters repeatedly point out, the words "shamatha" and "vipashyana" are used in many, many different ways throughout the various vehicles. It's important not to get too hung up on any one usage.

krodha wrote:
Yes in the way śamatha is being used in the quote you cited, the collapse of fabricated mind has already occurred. The use of śamatha as a descriptive term for conveying the steadiness of vidyā does not mean that śamatha in the traditional sense (meaning meditation performed from the standpoint of fabricated mind), needn't collapse, because it surely must if the definitive view is to flower.

As long as we're quoting Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:
"The recognition of emptiness is accomplished the moment you look. 'Seeing no thing is the supreme sight.'... When śamatha is destroyed or disintegrates, then there is true emptiness, an uncultivated emptiness, a natural emptiness. This primordial emptiness is dharmakāya indivisible from saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya."


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 9:09 AM
Title: Re: Lhathong
Content:
krodha wrote:
In Dzogchen, vipaśyāna is resting in the uncontrived nature of mind. Śamatha always implies the presence of an artificial point of reference, because clarity is being reified into a substantiated substratum. When śamatha eventually collapses then the true vipaśyāna of the natural state shines forth, which is the definitive meditation.

But I agree this dichotomy is a different use of vipaśyāna compared to the lhag mthong referenced in the four naljors.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Lhathong
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also Chögyal Namkhai Norbu's book "Introduction to the Practice of Contemplation" goes over the four contemplations [ting nge 'dzins] of sems sde in great detail. He has another called "The Four Contemplations of Semde" which is just a different teaching on the same insight discussed in the 'Introduction to the Practice of Contemplation' book [the four ting nge 'dzins].

Lhag mthong is the second rnal 'byor which is covered in discussing the ting nge 'dzins.

The four naljors [rnal 'byor] of Dzogchen sems sde are:
(i) shi-nè [skt. śamatha, wyl. zhi gnas]
(ii) lhatong [lhag mthong]
(iii) nyi-mèd [nyis med]
(iv) lhundrüp [lhun grub]

The four ting nge 'dzins of Dzogchen sem sde are:
(i) gnas pa [calm state]
(ii) mi gyo ba [non-movment]
(iii) nyam nyid [non-dual]
(iv) lhun grub [natural perfection]

The ting nge 'dzins are something like the essence of the naljors, or what is cultivated/recognized. For instance, the essence of śamatha [zhi gnas] is the calm state [gnas pa] or 'nepa', or you could say nepa is what śamatha results in.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 1:20 PM
Title: Re: Policy of Tolerance
Content:
krodha wrote:
Untxi, be careful not to let a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Those few bad apples aren't reflecting the buddhadharma itself, or as a whole. Just because there are a few intolerant Buddhists doesn't mean that Buddhism is intolerant. It just means there is an intolerant person involved with the buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Title: Re: Policy of Tolerance
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
There's a difference between compassion and dumb compassion. Being tolerant of racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. has it's place relatively, but there's a difference between a bit of tolerance and enabling ignorance. There are ignorant people in the world, whether naturally or conditioned, so in that way bigoted rhetoric has its place, and should be expected. The world can't be cleansed of fools. Overall though there's a fine line between tolerating bigots and allowing ignorant people to be bigots.

Vidyaraja said:
Racist, homophobe, and misogynists are buzzwords which have become nearly meaningless--at the present they can mean the belief that race exists or has meaning, that homosexuality is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged, or that men and women are different, respectively. In other words, these terms have become so broad as to encompass anything which disagrees with the leftist, politically correct dogmas on how people should think on these issues, thus functioning as mere ways to enforce the status quo and silence any opposing views under the fanatical notion that any deviation from those politically correct views will lead to genocide or some other boogeyman in the minds of progressives.

Better to be called a "bigot" and see things how they really are than to be deluded by a fluffy ideology which nearly all civilizations prior to the 20th and 21st centuries did without.

krodha wrote:
Well, you already seem to have a bias to promulgate, evident by your use of terms such as 'leftist' and 'progressive'. At any rate though, your contention that the meaning of said terms has become so broad as to obfuscate the possibility of having a meaning to be broad in the first place is really reaching. The majority of people know full well what a racist, homophobic or misogynistic view entails.

The opposition of such rhetoric has nothing to do with towing party lines or ideologies like you suggest, which again seems to be where your head is at. The opposition simply has to do with creating a welcoming environment where those who belong to certain communities, races, sexual preferences, etc., are not persecuted. And if the argument is raised that the persecutors are then being persecuted, well, being a racist is a choice, being a certain race is not. Being a homophobe is a choice, being gay or lesbian is not. Being a misogynist is a choice, being a woman is not. That is where the issue lies.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Title: Re: Policy of Tolerance
Content:
krodha wrote:
There's a difference between compassion and dumb compassion. Being tolerant of racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. has it's place relatively, but a bit of tolerance is quite different than enabling ignorance. There are ignorant people in the world, whether naturally or conditioned, so in that way bigoted rhetoric has its place, and should be expected. The world can't be cleansed of fools. Overall though there's a fine line between tolerating bigots and allowing ignorant people to be bigots.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 8:36 AM
Title: Re: Policy of Tolerance
Content:
untxi said:
There's a big difference between racist, misogynistic, and/or queer phobic language as conduct... I.e. as an act todirectly harm specific individuals... and the same speech bantered about in generalities.   IMHO this board guards against the former, not the later.

Personally if I wanted to hear about the ethcial failures of others,  and the lack of value and worth of women and LGBT people... I'd have stuck with my birth religion.

There is no place in dharma to make anyone feel lesser because of their gender or sexuality.

This  suggestion is in response to  homophobic and misogynistic themes in some recent threads.

krodha wrote:
I would say the expression of those themes was only from a select few, and they undoubtably met critique and resistance because of it. There's always going to be that small few who hold views of that nature, all that can really be done is to address their points with counterpoints when they come up.

The unfortunate flip side of tolerance is that we sometimes need to be tolerant of views we aren't fond of as well. Good way to practice compassion.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist perspective on Book of Revelation
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
... it ends with the establishment of the 'kingdom of heaven on earth'...


bob said:
The Book of Revelation manuscript is an example of a well-known Jewish apocalyptic literary genre of the late first or early second century. The genre surfaced in the Judeo-Christian tradition whenever the Jews were persecuted for their religion/politics. At the time the Book of Revelation was written, the Roman emperor Nero is reputed to have slaughtered Jewish and gentile Christians for refusing to worship Nero as a god. Therefore, according to the opinions of most current Biblical scholars, it was intended more as a political oratory than an account of actual future predictions.


krodha wrote:
Yes, well I didn't mean the establishment of the 'kingdom of heaven on earth', as in the literal notion of this story that fundamentalist Christians champion. I was referencing the idea of 'heaven on earth' more in the sense of the definitive realization that samsara is in truth nirvana, or that the two are non-dual from the ultimate standpoint, etc. The five elements are in truth the five wisdom lights, and so on.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist perspective on Book of Revelation
Content:
krodha wrote:
The term 'apocalypse' means to uncover, reveal, remove the veil, etc., hence 'revelation'. In my opinion it definitely sounds like a story of realization which went awry due to being spun in wild ways, filtered, mistranslated and/or purposefully obfuscated. Especially when it ends with the establishment of the 'kingdom of heaven on earth', and Jesus also states that the kingdom of heaven is within you.

Plus; the father, the son, the holy spirit. Very similar to (i) Buddha, dharma, sangha, (ii) guru, deva, dakini, (iii) dharmakāya, sambhogakāya, nirmanakāya.

Jesus being sealed in the cave (though allegedly postmortem, after 'crucifixion', which could carry various subtle meanings) is very similar to dark retreat. He emerges and is resurrected in a new pure body, very similar to the body of light which is the result of such practices.

Really seems like we're just dealing with the story of a yogi blown way out of proportion.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 1:10 PM
Title: Re: Self-Arising as yidam vs. being inseparable with the gur
Content:
krodha wrote:
The 'guru' in guru yoga is the nature of mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:
garudha said:
May I ask you if you agree with the modern teaching that the Tathagata may manifest as a personified buddha which has a body of light a-la the great perfection ?

edit: I think the correct term for the "body of light" is Nirmāṇakāya.

krodha wrote:
Nirmāṇakāya is the 'form' or 'created' body. 'Body' in the usual context the kāya is presented in means 'dimension'. However it is true that Buddhas who emanate in a physical form to spread the dharma, such as Buddha Śākyamuni or Garab Dorje, are 'Nirmāṇakāyas'. Both Śākyamuni and Garab Dorje are emanations of Vajrasattva, who is in turn an emanation of Samantabhadra.

The 'body of light', a type of phenomena which can take on various forms and expressions, is something different. The general Tibetan term the body of light is associated with is 'ja lus'. There is ja lus chen po, pho ba chen po, ja lus chung ngu, pho ba chung ngu, etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 21st, 2014 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
now when the Buddha talked about Self did he say that if the 5 aggreagtes WERE self they would lead to suffering? no he didn't why didn't he?
thats because the Buddha actually said that IF the 5 aggregates WERE Self they would not lead to suffering.
what did he say about Not Self?
he established that the 5 aggregates were Not Self and it was because they WERE not self that they lead to suffering
SN 22.59
“Form, O monks, is not-self;
O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering
you see the message is actually clear here Not Self is suffering and leads to suffering
where as if the 5 aggregates were Self they would not leads to suffering
now did any of those quotes say Self is suffering and self leads to suffering?
no as a mater of fact what ever is devoid of a self belongs to mara
(SN 23.24)
4 (2)-34 (12) Subject to Mara,

krodha wrote:
This claim of yours has already been clarified and refuted various times on here.

For example:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=14268&p=189675&hilit=+nonself#p189675


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 4:02 PM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:
Atanavat said:
"Not self to mean there is no self at all " = Above concepts not relevant.

krodha wrote:
Right, there is a conventional self, but that doesn't truly constitute a self. The self is an expression of karma, where there is karma there is conditioning, and the perception of a self appears as a result of those processes. There is no actual self though, in any sense of the term.

If those karmic propensities are allowed to proliferate, then the conditions persist. The continuity of those afflictive propensities is reincarnation. What reincarnates is habitual patterns, however again, there is no actual self within that patterning. That is why when one's karma is exhausted then liberation occurs.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 3:08 PM
Title: Re: Is all knowing state same as Higher Self?
Content:
Atanavat said:
Certainly seems so, quite puzzling in facts as it completely negates karma and reincarnation, as having any relevance.

krodha wrote:
Actually, quite the opposite. The lack of an inherent self is precisely why those things are relevant.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 12:18 PM
Title: Re: Three Turnings.
Content:
jeeprs said:
The 'three marks' -  impermanence (anicca); suffering or unsatisfactoriness (dukkha); non-self (Anatta) - are accepted by all Buddhist schools, are they not?

krodha wrote:
Yes. However that does not suggest a truly existent world or anything in that vein. The true meaning of impermanence is encountered in the emptiness or non-arising of phenomena. The idea of impermanent objects which are established in time and decay is a provisional coarse impermanence.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 8:36 AM
Title: Re: who is the Greatest master you have ever seen?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Getting back to the topic, although I have never seen asunthatneversets,
I'm beginning to think he is the greatest master posting on this thread.


krodha wrote:
For all I know we've been at the same tsog at Dondrub Ling, numerous times perhaps, but alas we shall never know since you're a top secret human being. Undercover Berkeley vajra brother.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: who is the Greatest master you have ever seen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Mahāvidyādhara Jigme Lingpa states:

"In the first place, the primary condition necessary for initiation is none other than the vajra master himself; therefore it is very important to examine the teacher to whom you are connected. As Orgyenpa has said:

'Having an unexamined teacher is like jumping into an abyss;
Having an unexamined student is like drinking poison.'

Because you must not make a mistake in this basic situation. I will examine the nature of it. The rig pa rang shar tantra teaches the following on the characteristics of a master:

'A master endowed with the truth of the vajra should:
Have a good disposition and be skilled in teaching,
Have obtained initiation and have applied himself to the secret mantra [vajrayāna],
Know all of the outer and inner activities,
Be inseparable from his yidam deity,
Be undistracted in contemplation,
Be learned in the secret tantras of the secret mantra, 
Which hold the truth of rdzogs chen man ngag sde
Have achieved all outer an inner accomplishments,
Never move from the meaning of the view,
Perform the outer, inner, and secret activities,
With qualities like precious jewels,
And an inexhaustible treasury of activity.'

This tantra [rig pa rang shar] also speaks of six characteristics:  having put all samsaric phenomena behind him, [ii] having few desires and being content, [iii] being skilled in practice and having had experiences, [iv] being learned in the meanings of the tantras and having striven to accomplish them, [v] being learned in the meaning of the view and being completely capable with it, and [vi] having great compassion and being happy in renunciation.

One with the complete set of these qualities is said to be necessary. If, on the other hand, he is merely an effigy of whom it is said 'This one is a wonderful source of miracles,' 'This one holds an unsurpassable rank,' and 'This one is a sacred object of worship and harmony with worldly people,' then he is not [a genuine teacher]. From the same tantra [rig pa rang shar]:

'Very proud and ignorant,
Followed because of his foolish words,
Without any realization of the meaning of secret mantra,
His arrogant words disparaging others,
Engaging in a false path,
Not seeing the face of the initiation mandala,
Becoming lax in his vows,
Not coming up with the answers to pure questions,
Very proud of the little he has learned,
The unexamined master is a demon of a master.'

As it says, do not get involved with such a demonic master."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: who is the Greatest master you have ever seen?
Content:
tyler2 said:
you dont understand that noone would believe buddha about enlightenment unless he was "shining" or had  presence, anyone can talk and say "i am enlightened".
the ascetics he originally practiced with who had rejected him originally , were going to reject him again but as he drew closer they were attracted by his aura.

krodha wrote:
Which is an example of upāya on Buddha Śākyamuni's part in order to begin turning the wheel of dharma in this current time. It is by no means criteria that you yourself need to rely upon at this point.

If a master emits dbang thang then s/he does, if they do not then they do not. You will not encounter instructions anywhere which state 'if you meet a master and they do not emit an overwhelming dbang thang then they are inauthentic', or 'if you meet a master and they emit dbang thang chung po, then by definition they are less realized than those who exhibit dbang thang chen po'. That would be ridiculous.

There is indeed criteria by which you can gauge whether or not a teacher is a suitable guru for you, and likewise criteria that a teacher can gauge a proper student by. In either case, the potency of teacher's aura will not be found on that list. This is simply your own standard you have conjured up yourself.

At any rate, no need to attempt to dissuade you from grasping at signs any further, in the end you will undoubtably do as you please.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: who is the Greatest master you have ever seen?
Content:
tyler2 said:
im not looking for  someone with strong aura or, some subtle siddhis,
im looking for someone with a extraordinary strong aura, very dramatic and overwhelming aka dilgo khyentse  rinpoche, shining with bliss and peace the signs of ultimate realization.

krodha wrote:
An extraordinarily strong aura is no different than a strong aura. An individual could be lit up and glowing like a Christmas tree, and that would not indicate anything.

There are many cautionary tales in Buddhism which address precisely this issue. Some of which describe profoundly realized masters who exhibit no observable signs in any way. Others which tell of fully awakened Buddhas who appear to people (who are seeking a teacher) as deformed or haggard vagrants asking for help, only to be turned away. When they eventually reveal themselves as the guru, the seeker is astounded and ashamed at how shallow they had been relying on signs of dramatic and overwhelming realization.

The guru is the living dharmakāya, free of any limitations your mind could project onto them, free of any limitations such as sensible indicators of profundity. You are limiting yourself.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: who is the Greatest master you have ever seen?
Content:
tyler2 said:
yeah i agree i think depends on the size of your aura and  the power of the  emanating masters aura

krodha wrote:
You do understand this is inadequate criteria by which to judge the authenticity (or realization) of a master, yes? The measure of a guru's wisdom cannot be gauged by the amount of kinesthetic vibration or tactile sensation you feel while you are located in their general proximity.

Some residual effects of prolonged meditative states are expressed in the form of measurable anomalies (obviously anomalous in comparison to what we usually perceive as the baseline standard), and these effects, abilities and so on are called siddhis. Siddhis are not a measure of realization, they are simply an indication of practice and meditation. Not all realized individuals have siddhis, and not all siddhas have realization. So be careful.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Indrajala said:
You should reread what I wrote.

There is a legal precedent established by virtue of agreeing that a human rights infringement needs to be rectified in the case of gay couples being denied the right to marry.

krodha wrote:
I did read what you wrote, two or three times.

Your contention that this legal precedent somehow translates to opening the door for equal rights in the case of rapists and people who abuse children is asinine.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 17th, 2014 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
krodha wrote:
Pedophilia is abuse. In the vein of rape. The prospect of pedophiles seeking equal rights is nothing like people in the LGBT community seeking equal rights. Members of the homosexual community are not harming anyone, and are not psychologically damaging children, ergo to suggest that opening the door for gay rights will be a call for pedophiles, rapists, murderers and whoever else to seek equal rights is really reaching, and absurd.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I share Elio's false contention. There are others who do too.

krodha wrote:
Then you are fixating on descriptions of the basis and failing to understand how the basis relates to the path and result.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm satisfied with this, but when I read passages like the following one, from Elio Guarisco's introduction to "Systems of Buddhist Tantra", I wonder what is going on: As for the view of atiyoga, Kongtrul presents first the general view of atiyoga, followed by its distinctions. Other systems explain that when mind is bound by illusion, there is cyclic life, while when mind is free of illusion and gains understanding, there is enlightenment. This view is not shared by the atiyoga system, which asserts that everything that exists—all phenomena included in cyclic life and perfect peace—has always been the total sphere of naturally present pristine awareness. Since the stains of the afflictions have never existed, there are no obstacles to clear away and no qualities to develop. All phenomena are perfect from the beginning in the state of essential identity, with no need for acceptance or rejection, prohibitions or remedies: this view of primordial enlightenment is known as the great perfection.

krodha wrote:
His contention that Atiyoga doesn't share that view is patently false. It is true that Dzogchen states that everything is naturally perfected and originally pure, but the system is predicated on knowledge [vidyā] or ignorance [avidyā] if that nature. Therefore Ati agrees that one's condition bound by delusion is cyclic existence and one's condition totally free of delusion is liberation.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Email Jim Valby and ask him if he translates Sems Nyid as 'Presence Itself'. The passage I posted of The Dochu was his translation.  You are only going on what Malcolm says the original term was. And I am sure Jim is very careful about his translations.

krodha wrote:
Malcolm just cited the section which precedes the quote you posted above (I would imagine translated directly from Tibetan), so it is sems nyid [skt. cittatā], which Malcolm translated as "mind-essence". "Nature of mind" is another common translation.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2014 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
Wow, "presence itself" is a horrible translation of sems nyid. I've seen dharmatā translated as 'reality itself', but 'presence itself' for cittatā is pretty vague.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I guess this is a belief based on study.

krodha wrote:
Projecting again?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 3:46 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
What happened when you realized 'the primordial non-arising of mind'? Was there Buddhahood?

krodha wrote:
Yes in realization, as opposed to recognition, the mind is instead buddha mind i.e. dharmakāya. If wisdom remains unobscured then there is buddhahood.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 3:01 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
if he says that mind cannot be found, then I wonder how can Buddhahood be realized?

krodha wrote:
Because realizing the primordial non-arising of mind is release.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 10:12 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
no I mean mind is like the son of a barren woman

krodha wrote:
And conventional designations are used to convey that insight.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 10:11 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
"mental events" yes, but "mind" no. it stinks of reification.

krodha wrote:
Also, 'mind' and 'mental events' are both equally unreal.

As elucidated by Longchenpa:
"As there is no mind and mental events, it does not exist as self-mind. As it does not exist as clarity or non-clarity, it is not established as self-clarity. As it transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness. This is called the Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes."


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
personally I don't think there is such a thing as "mind" even conventionally. "mental events" yes, but "mind" no. it stinks of reification.

krodha wrote:
Well you just gave credence to the conventional validity of mind by using it in two of your three sentences.

All conventions are equal in two ways; (i) they are equal in being conventions, (ii) they are equal in that they all ultimately lack inherent existence. So feel free to use conventional designations in any way you please. They only become an issue when you believe they refer, and they cease to be an issue when you realize they merely infer.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2014 at 9:40 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Huike said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.”
Bodhidharma replied, “Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.”
Huike said, “Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.”
“There,” Bodhidharma replied, “I have pacified your mind.”

krodha wrote:
Same principle. Mind is a mere convention and lacks inherency. If it existed it could be located when sought. But the mind is empty and therefore cannot be found when sought. Mind is empty clarity and the definitive recognition of that reveals wisdom.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Being smart with philosophical terms, being scholarly about Dzogchen, is like looking at Dzogchen through glasses. One hopes to discover something in the small print. But as ChNN points out, you need to look at the mirror (life itself) rather than historical objects such as philosophical treatises and so on.

krodha wrote:
While it is true that conceptual knowledge is no substitute for non-conceptual wisdom, the teachings do not necessarily reject 'being smart with philosophical terms' and so on. For most practitioners it goes without saying that an intellectual understanding is ultimately extraneous to non-conceptual wisdom, because after-all our nature is prajñāpāramitā, and so the two accumulations are naturally perfected through direct recognition. However for those who have yet to recognize their nature there is no issue with embracing upāya, which includes right view acquired from the qualified guru and familiarization with associated philosophical systems.

Dudjom Lingpa actually explores this point in his gnas lugs rang byung. Specifically the claim that studying or learning the correct view (in a provisional sense) is a hindrance. He attests that it is not, and uses the analogy of an ear which has water trapped in it (a nuisance we can all relate to), citing that one of the most effective ways of removing that trapped water is actually pouring more water into the ear, which will successfully wash out the water which is initially trapped leaving the ear free of water. He says that in the same way, the use of concepts and learning (within the context of the buddhadharma and Dzogpa Chenpo), serves the same purpose.

In Bönpo Dzogchen, the studying of the teachings and the wisdom gained from doing so is held to be one of the many modalities of rig pa [skt. vidyā], called bsam rig. It is said the more refined one's bsam rig is, the clearer one's view becomes.

My Kagyu lama also contends that a refined intellectual knowledge of the teachings is very important (though practice is more important), and states that one's intellectual knowledge of the teachings is directly related to prajñā. The former being a direct expression of the latter, and so while intellectual knowledge should not be treated as a substitute for non-conceptual wisdom, it also should not be rejected either. Just because a refined conceptual understanding is not a substitute for the view non-conceptual dharmatā does not mean it cannot act as a supplement, and in that sense a refined conceptual understanding can be a helpful and effective practice when applied skillfully. The fact that we all have varying capacities means we are all different, for some individuals studying and learning the tenets of the system may be advantageous, so there is no reason to limit oneself. As long as that intellectual knowledge isn't confused for he experiential wisdom of uncontrived dharmatā there really is no issues. Some even say the clearer your knowledge is conceptually, the easier it will be to recognize non-conceptual wisdom (as these varying modalities of vidyā and prajñā are all different facets and expressions of the same wisdom).


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
pensum said:
As Tulku Urgyen was fond of saying "not seeing is the supreme sight"

dzogchungpa said:
Yes, later in the chapter ChNNR says: The original texts of Dzogchen affirm in this regard that “finding nothing is the most you can find.” Our real condition is emptiness, so what is there to find? Even if we believe there is something to find, there is in fact nothing there. When you discover for yourself that there really is nothing, you have made the greatest discovery.
However, he goes on to say: Our real nature is not only emptiness. As Dzogchen practitioners, we must understand this.

krodha wrote:
Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche expands on 'not seeing is the supreme sight' in 'As It Is Vol. 2' and mirrors Norbu Rinpoche's sentiments quite nicely:

"The recognition of emptiness is accomplished the moment you look. 'Seeing no thing is the supreme sight.'... When śamatha is destroyed or disintegrates, then there is true emptiness, an uncultivated emptiness, a natural emptiness. This primordial emptiness is dharmakāya indivisible from saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: How to be non-attached if you have children?
Content:
krodha wrote:
As long as an individual functions from the standpoint of mind, attachment is implied and will always be present. Mind as dualistic experience is predicated on grasping because the duality of subject and object arises directly from acts of grasping. It is possible to aspire to not grasp, and attempt to practice non-attachment, but grasping and attachment will still be present. It is just that we may form attachment to the prospect of being unattached, or grasp at non-grasping. So all in all when it comes to our relative condition we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, and therefore embrace caring for your children and love them fully.

If you want to overcome attachment and grasping then make a commitment to practice the buddhadharma as much as possible and with skillful intent. As your practice flowers you will recognize the innate non-grasping and unattachment of mind-essence, because your nature is innately free of mind, and is therefore free of the confusion which manifests the artificial constructs of you as a subject relating to objects. That non-conceptual wisdom will clarify attachment and grasping for you, and familiarization with that wisdom will purify the afflictive bonds which are the foundation for afflictive habits of grasping. The true face of love is known in wisdom because the true expression of wisdom is uncaused compassion. So you don't have to worry about your love for your children, just commit to practicing as much as possible and if you practice skillfully everything else will come in time.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2014 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
Actually my impression is that what distinguishes them are the blessings of an unbroken lineage. However 50 years from now there may effectively be no difference at all.

krodha wrote:
Apart from the blessing of an unbroken lineage you see nothing which differentiates Hindu and Buddhist tantra?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 5:51 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
alpha said:
The translators of the treasuries of  Longchenpa are using "the ground of being " very generously throughout their translations.

krodha wrote:
Yeah, just a trend in translation gone awry, same with the trend of translating rigpa as 'awareness'.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 4:07 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
Yes, the quote I gave does cater to my confirmation bias.

krodha wrote:
And that's all well and good, to each their own.

These cater to mine...

"Since my self-originated wisdom originally is pure of delusion, it is beyond the extremes of being and non-being."
- The Unwritten Tantra [Per Malcolm]

"The mandala is completed in the nonconceptual path, 
freeing the bonds of proliferation of thoughts and so on,
free from the empty phenomena of intentions and so on,
beyond being and non-being, negative and positive objects, and so on,
liberated from phenomena that fall into an extreme."
-- Rigpa Rangshar Tantra [Per Malcolm]

"Here I will explain the all-basis [skt. ālaya, tib. kun gzhi] to start off:
It is the ground of all phenomena [being] and non-phenomena [non-being]."
- sgra thal gyur

"The all-basis is the real ignorance [skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa]."
- rigpa rangshar


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 3:33 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
True. So we should rely on more authoritative voices, such as the head of the Nyingma lineage in the 2nd half of the 20th century:

Ultimate reality is the mandala of the perfectly pure expanse of voidness. It is like a "magic" mirror. What unimpededly appears on it are all the things (dharmas) of relative reality, your mind included. These things appear naturally in this "magic" mirror, through and to your mind. There is no third reality of a truly existing mind or objects juxtaposed to the ultimate reality of the mirror and the relative reality of the images on it.

So I think that it should be acceptable to say that there is an ultimate reality, and that it is a ground of being as per the mirror analogy.

krodha wrote:
The basis [gzhi] is definitely not a 'ground of being' at all, in any sense. If there is a ground of being in Dzogchen it is the all-basis i.e. 'basis of all' [tib. kun gzhi, skt. ālaya], since all four extremes arise from it (including 'being'). But you and I could surely cherry pick quotes all day which seem to cater to our confirmation biases.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 3:10 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
jeeprs said:
Interestingly, there is a Wikipedia article called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_of_Being_%28Dzogchen%29 (albeit with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_of_Being_%28Dzogchen%29#Nomenclature_of_article:_meta-annotation.)

krodha wrote:
Granted wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone with a computer and an internet connection can contribute to. Sort of a low bar when it comes to the qualifications required for being involved in the creation of something which is supposed to resemble a dependable source of information. Which is to say trained primates could update wikipedia, and probably do often. Exhibit-A being the link above.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
A lack of inherency would not imply that there is only dependency, because to be dependently originated means to lack inherency.

Sherab said:
Here you are saying that "lack of inherency" implies dependency + something else.  I can concede to this for the time being.

krodha wrote:
I implied nothing of the sort. I'm not sure how you are deriving 'a lack of inherency implies dependency' out of my statement that 'a lack of inherency does not imply dependency". Dependent origination is simply correct relative view, it is nothing more than a means to understand and intuit the non-arising of the relative. Which if contemplated skillfully has the potentiality to lead to the correct ultimate view of emptiness i.e. the realization of emptiness.

asunthatneversets said:
... since there is nothing which exists independent of cause and condition, there is nothing which is inherent.

Sherab said:
Here you are saying that "lacking inherency" implies dependency on cause and condition, or in short, "lacking inherency" implies that there is only dependency.  This contradicts what you said earlier.

krodha wrote:
Again I neither said, nor implied, anything of the sort. It seems the issue is that you're filtering my statements through your own interpretation of these notions, which unfortunately doesn't appear to lend to an accurate view on your part.

asunthatneversets said:
On top of that, since that which arises in accordance with cause and condition is only valid as long as those conditions persist (and cannot be found in the absence of those conditions), conditioned arisings do not arise.

Sherab said:
When conditions arise, conditioned arisings arise.  When conditions persist, conditioned arisings persist.  When conditions ceased, conditioned arisings ceased.  So your conclusion that conditioned arisings do not arise is false.  Conditioned arisings do not arise only when you shift your perspective, but your argument as presented did not indicate any move to shift perspectives as far as I can see.

krodha wrote:
The shifting of perspective does not render arisen arisings as non-arisen. Those arisings are non-arisen from the very beginning. It is only our delusions which mistakenly perceive arising, abiding and cessation in what has never arisen to begin with.

One interpretation (or treatment) of 'conditions' (in the idea of 'cause and condition') is actually delusion itself. Delusion is the conditions. Where delusion occurs, the false appearance of arising manifests, where delusion persists the false appearance of persisting manifests. Where delusion ceases, non-arising is recognized, because the afflictive projections of deluded mind are simply figments of ignorance, and non-arising had been present since beginningless time.

asunthatneversets said:
Ergo there is nothing which arises independently of cause and condition, and also nothing which arises in dependence upon causes and conditions. Independent origination is impossible, and dependent origination is not origination.

Which means 'only dependency' is impossible, the dependent never arose. Likewise 'only the relative' is impossible, because the relative is merely inferential and conventional dissimulation.

Sherab said:
The rest of the argument are incoherent because your earlier argument was incoherent.

krodha wrote:
What is incoherent, is your conclusion that the impossibility of independent or dependent origination means there is only dependency.

For the record, I appreciate and enjoy the discussion, but the fact that you don't grasp this concept doesn't mean what I am saying is incoherent.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 8:44 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I don't think anyone, at any point on this thread said the relative is all there is. If the ultimate lacks inherency the relative does as well.

Sherab said:
"Lacks inherency" means lacking there is nothing innate and implies that there is only dependency.  In other words, everything is relative.  Therefore "lacking inherency" is another way of saying that the relative is all there is.

krodha wrote:
A lack of inherency would not imply that there is only dependency, because to be dependently originated means to lack inherency.

If something is inherent then it exists independently of causes and conditions, since there is nothing which exists independent of cause and condition, there is nothing which is inherent. On top of that, since that which arises in accordance with cause and condition is only valid as long as those conditions persist (and cannot be found in the absence of those conditions), conditioned arisings do not arise.

Ergo there is nothing which arises independently of cause and condition, and also nothing which arises in dependence upon causes and conditions. Independent origination is impossible, and dependent origination is not origination.

Which means 'only dependency' is impossible, the dependent never arose. Likewise 'only the relative' is impossible, because the relative is merely inferential and conventional dissimulation.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 3:57 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
From The Mejung Tantra

The True Nature of Reality

"To this end [the Bhagavan said]:

Mahasattva!

Those who desire enlightenment have no enlightenment and are far from the levels of realization,
far from the supreme enlightenment that is complete liberation.

Whoever understands the true nature of reality that is like [the universal] cause
has the certainty that the primordial state is one's self.

Since one's self is the essence of enlightenment,
there is nothing to attain and nothing to abandon.

The enlightenment of the buddhas is a verbal designation
and does not really exist.

The characteristics of phenomena are totally pure,
and always arise from the nature of reality that has no identity.

Phenomena that are not born have no essence,
and thus there is nothing about them on which to meditate.

Since they are self-originated like space,
all phenomena are proclaimed to be always perfect.

since phenomena are natural luminosity,
they are primordially pure, like space.

There is no enlightenment
and there are no sentient beings.

[Everything] arises from the reality that has no identity.

Enlightenment, which is the perfect realization of the primordial state,
is beyond concepts and cannot be thought of as an object."

krodha wrote:
This is speaking from the standpoint of primordial wisdom. For wisdom there is no enlightenment, no sentient beings, everything is known to be self perfected, originally pure, there is nothing to meditate upon, all that rhetoric. The issue, which is a common misconception when it comes to Dzogchen, is that excerpts such as the one above are misinterpreted as referencing our relative condition, when it is doing nothing of the sort. The above quotation isn't negating liberation for the individual in the conventional sense, which is the only sense it is applicable, all it is saying is that wisdom is self perfected from the very beginning, and if wisdom isn't recognized in an authentic way, then there is no authentic connection to the type of insight described above.

Andrew108 said:
You don't really want to get rid of ignorance. It's a natural letting go that is important here. In the end this 'not grasping' is an attitude of being positionless. In Dzogchen, integration isn't about taking up a position with respect to ignorance - integration is being delighted by 'ordinary life'.
Seeing the self as an isolated container is not the way to go. The self is an aspect of life rather than a container of 'mind-life'. That's why there is no individual accomplishment - no heroic transcendence. The idea of reality having no fixed identity is the key point. There is reality in a wider sense of the term. The true nature of that reality is that it has no fixed identity. It's a display of all possibilities of which you are just one possibility in amongst an infinite number of possibilities. Recognition isn't overcoming - rather it's whether or not you see yourself as an equal part of the display (which is a display that contains all possibilities without any bias towards any typical or particular type of display).

krodha wrote:
The 'not-grasping' which results from recognizing dharmatā is not an attitude. An attitude is something the mind adopts in relation to an object, the non-grasping of dharmatā is nothing like that.

Integration is not simply being delighted by 'ordinary life', many people are delighted by ordinary life, that does not mean they are integrating with their nature.

There is individual accomplishment in the conventional sense, the liberation of one individual is not your liberation, and so in that respect there is individual accomplishment. Ultimately is there individual accomplishment? No, since that accomplishment lacks inherency. Either way it has nothing to do with heroic transcendence.

If reality has no fixed identity then there is no reality in the wider sense of the term. That is what emptiness means, no fixed identity, because the entity that said identity could possibly belong to cannot be located when sought.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 1:27 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
Sure the universe, sentient beings and the various other expressions of ignorance may be the play of rtsal, but that doesn't mean they are wisdom display.

alpha shared this quote on here some time ago:
"The essence is like the sun, shining clearly in the expanse of the basic space of phenomena. Everything arises without bias due to its dynamic energy, which is like the sun's rays. They suffuse the earth and bodies of water with warmth, so that a display of clouds arises, formed from water vapor. This obscures the essence itself and even its dynamic energy. Similarly due to the impure display of natural dynamic energy deriving from the essence itself, one's perception of suchness, the heart essence is obscured. The universe of appearances and possibilities consists of an inconceivable range of perceptions based on confusion."
- Longchenpa

The sun simply displays its radiance and heat, and when that heat interacts with water vapor, clouds are formed which then obscure the sun. The sun is still shining all along, however by force of its own innate qualities certain causes and conditions arise which veil it. The clouds aren't a part of the sun, but arise adventitiously as an expression of its dynamism. Likewise dualistic mind and the expressions of avidyā aren't primordial wisdom, but arise adventitiously as a result of primordial wisdom's dynamism.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 12:57 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
I'd like to quote Dudjom Rinpoche again, ibid:

There is no third reality of a truly existing mind or objects juxtaposed to the ultimate reality of the mirror and the relative reality of the images on it.
(formatting mine)

You can mistake a rope for a snake, but the rope--or anything and everything else in the entire universe--is never anything other than "an image on the mirror" of the Basis. That is the entirety of reality, whether recognized or not. (At least that's my understanding of Dzogchen view, YMMV.)

krodha wrote:
Ultimately recognition and non-recognition are the only factors Dzogchen is concerned with. There is no value in the idea that the universe is an abstraction which is truly the wisdom display of the basis unless you actually recognize it as such. Just like any other vehicle in the buddhadharma, Dzogchen is above all a soteriological system, and so the cessation of ignorance and the end of suffering is the point of the system. That can only be achieved if the basis is recognized, and the path is followed through to the result.

If sentient beings were in recognition of the basis then there would be no reason for the teachings, but the teachings are necessary, and the need for the teachings clearly shows that sentient beings are not apperceiving the appearances of the basis.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 11:27 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
Since this is the Dzogchen forum, it is not improper to mention that those teachings say that everything is a manifestation of the Basis. The analogy that is often used is of the Basis being a mirror and all phenomena being the images in the mirror.

krodha wrote:
The basis only manifests sound, light and rays, which are the appearances of the basis [gzhi snang] as non-arisen display. Everything else arises due to non-recognition of those appearances. In that sense the basis acts as the cause for the various manifestations, such as the universe and so on, however the universe itself is not an appearance of the basis.

As noted by Malcolm in the quote you posted; the aspect of the basis called compassion is the energy of the display of the universe and all its beings. However when you are seeing the universe and sentient beings you are not actually seeing the appearance of the basis correctly, and for that reason one cannot truly say that the universe is an appearance of the basis. The aspect of compassion is the energy which serves as the cause of those manifestations, but the manifestations themselves are the result of delusion. Just like seeing a snake instead of a rope is not an accurate knowledge of the rope.

"In brief, those delusions also are not delusion that exist in the cause and basis, but as one does not understand the actual state of the basis one is stubbornly deluded about one’s appearances. For example when grasping to a seeming appearance that does not exist in the material, a rope appears to be a snake. Like a conch shell appearing yellow, the actual state of the basis has not been understood, and there is fixated delusion about one’s appearances."
-- Khandro Nyinthig [Per Malcolm]


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Non-recognition is referring to non-recognition of one's nature.

Andrew108 said:
Non-recognition refers to the non-recognition of the nature of phenomena (past, present and future).

krodha wrote:
Yes, non-recognition of the nature of phenomena, though I am not sure what the 'past, present, future part has to do with anything in this context.

Andrew108 said:
There is no separate "one's nature" to recognize in distinction to other things.

krodha wrote:
Initially, there indeed is. The first definitive recognition that occurs in Dzogpa Chenpo is recognizing the nature of mind. That recognition is what overturns delusion and reveals wisdom. The 'nature' of so-called objective phenomena is revealed in its complete and unobscured nature later in the path. Sems nyid reveals the emptiness of the individual, but it does not necessarily reveal the emptiness of phenomena just yet.

Andrew108 said:
Perhaps when you say "one's nature" you actually mean nature of phenomena. This nature of phenomena includes both animate and inanimate. Realizing the nature of both animate and inanimate phenomena is the point. In this way the universe needn't change and we needn't see the universe through any conceptual lens in the hope that our universe will change.

krodha wrote:
Your championing of this alleged 'animate and inanimate' dichotomy is something which undoubtably stems from your misreading and misunderstanding of quotations like the one you referenced above. A misstep which leads you to then further solidify this misunderstanding by introducing your physicalist and scientific theories / rhetoric so that you can validate your reasoning to yourself. You are correct that recognizing the nature of the so called animate and inanimate is the point, but this does not mean that this proposed dichotomy has any validity to it. It is a figment of ignorance, it is the rope mistaken to be a snake. There is no inherent universe to change or not-change, the universe is a misunderstanding.

From the Uprooting Delusion tantra [Per Malcolm]:
"Because of a lack of mindful attention, self and other are grasped as a duality, and both outer and inner dependent origination occur. The whole universe arises through awareness looking externally. All sentient being arise through awareness looking internally. Through looking there, fearful appearances arise, through looking here, ‘self’ arises. Many mistakes arise from the single mistake about the appearances of here and there. Because of being mistaken about a self, there is a mistake about other, attachment to self, aversion to other. From the seed of attachment and aversion, the whole outer universe and inhabitants are mistakes."

Andrew108 said:
The injunction in Dzogchen is natural self liberation, integration. Be life rather than a container for life. Life shines as an extremely precious thing. You see that others, who have life, are equal to you in preciousness - just because of this fact of life. There is no need to take a position in regards to ignorance (however subtle) if such position leads to dismissive arrogance and negativity.

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen is natural self liberation because the entire praxis [basis, path, result] from beginning to end is conducted from the standpoint of one's knowledge [vidyā] of uncontrived dharmatā. Your latter statement regarding 'dismissive arrogance' is undoubtably another projection of the shadow on your part, which is nothing new from you. I'm sure it is very hard to see that the entire way you carry yourself on these forums can be succinctly framed by the phrase 'dismissive arrogance'.

Andrew108 said:
As for the rest of your post then I certainly agree and I believe that Malcolm was in error by asserting 'no-reality'. Although it hardly matters. There is no real authority on the issue. It comes down to opinion and experience.

krodha wrote:
There is no error in asserting 'no-reality' in conventional discussion such as this. The error is only when the intellect is taken into the practice, and so the error you see in the statement of 'no-reality' is in no way the same as the error Jigme Lingpa was addressing. As for authority; the only authority to be found is that which we create ourselves, so in that sense you are correct that opinion is a fundamental force behind perceived authority.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Some people see this as being a provisional statement. Basically it doesn't fit for them. Doesn#t fit with their view.

krodha wrote:
Again, Dzogchen ultimately dispenses with the animate-inanimate dichotomy, and so your quote would be a provisional pointer which is intending to reveal how the animate and inanimate (are byproducts of delusion, which) are non-dual [advaya] from the standpoint of one's nature.

"After first being created by the energy [rtsal] of wisdom, in the middle, as it was not recognized that the body of the refined part of the assembled elements actually is the five wisdoms, since this was not realized through intellectual views, the non-sentient (inanimate) and sentient (animate) both appear, but don’t believe it... As such, the sign of non-duality is [the body] disappearing into wisdom without any effluents because the critical point of the non-duality or sameness of the non-sentient and the sentient was understood according to the Guru’s intimate instructions."
- Khandro Nyingthig [Per Malcolm]


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Really?

How about:

"When phenomena, however they manifest, are not understood to be Pure Perfect Presence, there will be no realization through correction and practice."

So really the non-recognition is refering to the wasteful efforts of those who try to overcome ignorance through correction (via views) and practice (contrived meditation).

krodha wrote:
Non-recognition is referring to non-recognition of one's nature. The quote above is conveying that there can be no realization from the standpoint of non-recognition. No matter how much practice and/or correction is made, since it is predicated on delusion, any efforts made within avidyā will not bring one any closer to wisdom. Recognition is first and foremost.

Meditation is not foremost, realization is foremost;
If realization is not entered with confidence,
The meditator is merely meditating on a conceptual state,
The seeker is seeking with an afflicted clinging.
- kun tu bzang po che ba la rang gnas pa

Andrew108 said:
Mejung states:

"It is a total failure to construct a fixed reference point. It is a stupid view which looks for the emptiness of just-that-ness."

You and Malcolm do nothing other than offer fixed reference points and give advice about how to see and understand emptiness.

krodha wrote:
Right, because in recognition of dharmatā it is intimately known that phenomena have been non-arisen from the very beginning. Ergo, attempting to will phenomena to be empty is functioning through the presupposition that there is something which actually needs to become empty. In such an act, which is executed from the standpoint of mind, all that is accomplished is reification of a subject relating to an object, which means one has constructed a fixed reference point. In the eyes of Atiyoga, the view is stupid because it fails to recognize uncontrived dharmatā, and so the individual attempts to discover dharmatā through contrived effort.

For example; Jigme Lingpa states:
"Here the external forms that are perceived are not designated as empty of self. When emptiness is made an intellectual object, the form and emptiness aspects of the object arise in the intellect. However since the perceived forms have no intrinsic characteristics, those forms should not mix with the intellect. Therefore the statement, 'Emptiness is not other than form, nor form other than emptiness,' should be taken as an axiom"

He also states that from the standpoint of vidya; "appearances are not cut with the razor of emptiness", rather, they are known to have been empty from the very beginning (although the definitive expression of their emptiness may not be ascertained until later in the path. Either way, the meditation of Dzogpa Chenpo is resting in uncontrived dharmatā).

"In the gol shor tshar gcod seng ge'i ngar ro, Jigme Lingpa enumerates four mistaken approaches to emptiness, which he calls the 'four ways of straying [shor sa bzhi].' These are borrowed from the Mahāmudrā tradition, where they are to be found at least as far back as Dagpo Tashi Namgyal (1512-87), who enumerates them in his Legshe Dawai Özer. They are: (i) straying into the condition where emptiness is an object of knowledge, (ii) straying into taking emptiness as the path, (iii) straying into taking emptiness as an antidote, and (iv) straying into taking emptiness as a seal."
- Sam Van Schaik


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Yes and you also have definitive statements within the Dzogchen tantras such as:

"All phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe are manifestations of my nature."

krodha wrote:
That would be a provisional statement, since Dzogchen ultimately dispenses with the animate-inanimate dichotomy, and the universe arises from non-recognition of one's nature i.e. it is an illusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Also the idea of there being an objective condition that beings are born into isn't problematic for Dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
On the contrary, Samantabhadra specifically states that viewing one's so called environment as an objective condition shows great immaturity.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 4:38 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
I don't think anyone, at any point on this thread said the relative is all there is. If the ultimate lacks inherency the relative does as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 3:45 PM
Title: Re: The Dalai Lama Says Gay Marriage Is OK
Content:
Nighthawk said:
So gay marriage is alright but homosexual acts are not.... ok?

krodha wrote:
The Dalai Lama didn't say anything against 'homosexual acts'. He merely stated that certain traditions may have guidelines and one should be mindful of that. Apart from that he said as long as both people are safe and the sex is consensual there's no issues.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
Bob, regarding the kindergarten view: In the context of the buddhadharma, only when you come to realize there is no solace, peace or purpose to be found in samsara, will your path towards liberation begin. Otherwise you will always think there is meaning to be found in graduating from a projected kindergarten, and you will attempt to find refuge in that without any possibility of it providing shelter. Just as the improvements and acquisitions in a dream cannot deliver lasting peace, the improvements and acquisitions of samsara cannot either. As long as you identify with the possibility of a greater or more refined experience beyond the pale of this so called kindergarten, you are building sandcastles.

This is why the bhāvacakra is a wheel, why samsara is a cycle, no point is higher or lower than another. Every realm, including the god realms and so on, are delusion and suffering. Buddhahood and liberation are not depicted on the wheel for a reason. You cannot cross a shoreless ocean.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Returning to my trusty copy of "Treasury of Precious Qualities, Book Two", there seems to be some discussion related to this point. In appendix 3, "The View Expounded in the Guhyagarbha, the Root Tantra of the Mayajala  Cycle", taken from the commentary of Yonten Gyamtso, we find the following: It could, however, be objected that since the perceptions of the Noble Ones are their own subjective experience ( rang snang ), they are not the same thing as the impure appearances that we experience now. The answer to this is that, in general, the “thing” that is observed by all has no reality as an extramental object. 636
Note 636 reads as follows: blta bya thun mong ba. This is a complex issue. The question is: Does there exist an objective, commonly present substrate for the different perceptions of beings, whether in or beyond samsara? To answer in the affirmative implies a belief in the existence of something that is in itself independent of, and unrelated to, perception. But there is no such thing. It is obvious, however, that something must be posited even though nothing exists as such, otherwise there is no subject for discussion. Gyalwa Longchenpa (in his Precious Treasury That Fulfils All Wishes ) and Mipham Rinpoche (in his Lamp of Certainty ) define this “something" as “mere appearance"  ( snang tsam, the opposite of nonappearance or absence)— the common undifferentiated basis for the contrasting perceptions of the six classes of beings. Other than mere appearance, there is nothing. [KPS = Khenchen Pema Sherab]
This seems to me to be a kind of idealism. One thing I find confusing is why someone who held this view would think there were other beings?

Edit: now that I reread it I don't think I understand what it means to say that snang tsam is "the common undifferentiated basis for the contrasting perceptions of the six classes of beings".

krodha wrote:
This is just saying for the sake of conventional discourse and communication of these notions, a common 'objective noumenon' ( 'objective, commonly present substrate', as they put it) is posited so that the idea of the six classes experiencing the same phenomena (a river for example) as various things (as mentioned above; nectar, blood, etc.) can be implemented. However ultimately there is no such thing, since when it comes down to it the varying sentient beings of the six classes, along with their sensory spheres, sense organs, etc., all lack inherency.

For instance, in the rdzogs pa chen po kun tu bzang po ye shes klong gi rgyud, Vajra Realization asks Samantabhadra:

"Since the sensory spheres that manifest in that way are delusory perception, why does an object, such as a house, manifest to all sentient beings as the same thing?"

Thus spoke Samantabhadra: "In the case of the perceptions of realized beings, delusory perception is never experienced. For nonrealized beings, on the other hand, perception manifests for each of the six families according to their general class. Therefore there are different perceptions for each of the six families; for instance, although there is just one single body of water, it is experienced as nectar by the gods, as embers by the hell-beings, as blood and pus by the hungry ghosts. This is because those who are included in the karmic perceptions and dynamic forms of a particular family are given simultaneously one type of delusory perception, which is merely the coarse way their sensory spheres, senses, and thoughts manifest."

The 'single body of water' is posited conventionally, for the sake of the point being made. This however does not mean there actually is an objective body of water out there which is being interpreted by the senses, because ultimately the senses and so on do not withstand scrutiny (and therefore whatever the senses may be interpreting or translating is equally unfounded, in the ultimate sense).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: A pretty cool religion
Content:
krodha wrote:
Robert Beer discusses the thangka iconography and imagery of rainbows and rainbow body in his book 'The Encyclopedia of Tibetan Symbols and Motifs'.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
bob said:
Would you want to remain in kindergarten perpetually?

krodha wrote:
Kindergarten and graduate school are equal as far as samsara goes. There are no levels or grades, the so called higher realms are just as deluded as the so called lower realms. So it isn't about remaining in kindergarten perpetually, but rather the perpetual cycle of samsara.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 7th, 2014 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
There is. Ask a brain surgeon.

krodha wrote:
The good ol' Mustang Cave physicalist/materialist view.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 2:54 PM
Title: Re: A pretty cool religion
Content:
smcj said:
So that's a real style? It's not Alex Grey?

krodha wrote:
Yeah that is the traditional depiction of rainbow body in thangka art.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 10:15 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
When Devaputra asked Śākyamuni, "Who made Mt. Meru, the sun and moon?," the Buddha said:

"In answer to that, surely no creator exists other than the karmic potentialities and habitual patterns and conditioning of our thought processes. These define and label appearances, reifying and objectifying them, forming them accordingly. All things are created by our own minds."

Again, Devaputra asked the Buddha, "Our habitual thought patterns and conditioning may inform the nature of appearances, but from whence comes the solidity and density of Mt. Meru, the sun, the moon and so on?" And the Buddha replied:

"In Benares there once lived an old woman who visualized herself as a tiger and transformed her human body into the body of a tiger, and the people of Benares, having set eyes upon her, fled, and the city was deserted. If in a very short time an old woman can effect such a transformation by visualization, is it not indeed probable that appearances have been created in the same way, when the mind has been conditioned by karmic propensities instilled since beginningless time?"


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
Here's David Germano on the 'appearances and mind' topic:

"'Designating appearances as the dharmakāya obscures me,
designating whatever appears as mind obscures me,
designating wisdom as mind obscures me'
- The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra

To expand on this, nowadays common fools say, 'Appearances are your own mind! Appearances are the dharmakāya! Wisdom [ye shes] is our mind!' Really there's no difference between such people and the insane who say whatever pops into their mind: 'The head is the ass!' 'Fire is water!' 'Darkness is light!' Thus I consider these people ignorant, since they are even more conceited than such madmen. If appearances are our mind, then it follows that our mind has colors and so forth. It would entail that even when you are absent, your mind would exist in the area where you previously were, since the appearances there continue to exist (despite your leaving). Furthermore, it would entail that through one thing being born, everything is born; and through one thing dying, everything dies. When ten million people see a vase, it would entail that the entire vase is (part and parcel of each person's own particular) mind, and just so, all those individuals would be of a single mind. Since all phenomena appear in the scope of a Buddha's 'enlightened knowing of things in all their plurality', it would entail that cyclic existence is the Buddha's wisdom [ye shes]. When a sentient being sees a Buddha, it would necessarily follow that this Buddha is distorted, since s/he is the sentient being's mind. Additionally it would entail that this sentient being is a Buddha, since the Buddha is the sentient being's mind. This position would also entail that these appearances could become totally adrift in a single instant, just as in a single instant our mind's movements drift here and there. Thus these and many other absurdities are entailed (by identifying appearances with the mind). 

If appearances are the dharmakāya, then it would entail that appearances are beyond appearance and non-appearance, since the dharmakāya is beyond appearance and non-appearance. It would follow that the dharmakāya would be a distorted appearance, and that it would be apprehensible in terms of a substantial thing and its concrete qualities, since these appearances are distorted appearances apprehended in terms of substantial qualities. Alternatively, it would follow that it would be impossible for these appearances to appear to (ordinary beings') distorted perspective, since the dharmakāya is the ultimate reality and, as such, can never appear to a distorted perspective."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
'Malcolm said:
While it is clear that Dzogchen definitely posits the basis as a set of generic characteristics that belong to individual minds, it does not posit that appearances are mental factors.

smcj said:
So this is how you're distancing yourself from the Cittamatra?
Malcolm said:
One can experience only one's mind. For this reason Shabkar states in Flight of the Garuda:

Ignorance appearing as the five poisons is also the mind.
Self-originated primordial wisdom appearing as vidyā is also the mind...
There are no appearances at all apart from the mind.

smcj said:
(formatting mine)

Malcolm, I think you're in denial about having succumbed to the Cittamatra view. An intervention may be in order.

krodha wrote:
smcj, the statement usually goes; appearances are not mind, but nor are they separate from mind.

The former statement avoids the cittamatran view, and the latter allows for dependent origination.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
I really don't get #1. How can it not be spontaneously present? Or does that mean something like "automatically realized"?

(And I edited my previous post to be a little more polite. You quoted it before the edit went into effect.)

krodha wrote:
The reasoning I have is: If the basis had characteristics of defects or virtues, spontaneously present from the beginning, this would contradict original purity and thus be a faulty belief. Practicing the path would not be possible, and even if one practiced the path it would be impossible to be liberated.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
In the sixfold faulty definitions of the basis [gzhi] described in The Six Dimensions of Samantabhadra, your suggestion here is listed as the number two faulty definition of the basis (the belief that the basis is indefinite).

smcj said:
Ok, cough it up. What are the other five for us dilettantes?

krodha wrote:
There are two types of understanding in reference to the basis [gzhi]:

(a) The basis as an object of knowledge held to be absolute.
(b) The basis as original purity [ka dag].

(a) Here is the Basis as an Object of Knowledge held to be Absolute:

It has six aspects (all of which are inaccurate).

(i) The belief that the basis is spontaneously present.
(ii) The belief that the basis is indefinite.
(iii) The belief that it is the definite and determinate foundation.
(iv) The belief that it is totally changeable.
(v) The belief that it can be said to be anything whatsoever.
(vi) The belief that it is multifaceted with various aspects. 

These six aspects are faulty beliefs. They are partial and biased and should not be accepted in this context as the true basis. Through them you would have no more than a partial understanding of the natural state. 

(b) The basis as original purity [ka dag]:

(vii) Original purity [ka dag] (Held to be the only accurate view).


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
4. It's inconceivable. Beyond words. Ambiguous. Without fixed identity. Can't be known. This feature of reality has consequences.

If you ever read Camus you can come to a good understanding of the poverty of religious positions and the richness of ambiguity. In any case all you can do is get with life - how life is is how you are.

krodha wrote:
In the sixfold faulty definitions of the basis [gzhi] described in The Six Dimensions of Samantabhadra, your suggestion here is listed as the number two faulty definition of the basis (the belief that the basis is indefinite).


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 6th, 2014 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: African Americans & people of Color, & Buddhism in the W
Content:
krodha wrote:
Here's a video of Lama Choying Rangdrol discussing Buddhism on Oakland California public access. He brings up Garab Dorje's three words which strike the essence and presents the teaching in a context that relates to the community:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:59 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
All the time you say there is no reality you are dealing in reality. So this 'no-reality' is something you hope for. You also think this makes you smart. This is life negative. But I guess you will twist this to say you are being life positive. Such is the way smart people who are also fantasists never let go. Problem comes when you infect other people with this nonsense. This really is like the story about the Emporer's new clothes.

krodha wrote:
Sound logic. I also hope no one else gets infected.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
@Conrad...Because even though he says there is no reality he still believes in accomplishment. So there is a contradiction. He is saying this 'no reality' has value.

krodha wrote:
That 'no reality' is simply the cessation of ignorance. Liberation is an exhaustion, an unbinding, a release, a collapse, an extinguishing, a cessation etc. which comes from the accurate knowledge of our nature reaching its full measure. The attainment is non-attainment, it is the direct apperception that the very factors the process (of attainment) is predicated upon are thoroughly unreal, and the total purification of the latent residual habituations of delusion which linger in the wake of that recognition. That 'non-attainment' does not negate the attainment though, because that falling away and cessation is itself the liberating insight which brings about release.

In the direct recognition of our nature it is seen that there has never been anything which was bound, nor anything which required liberation. That seeing reveals the unreality of samsara and nirvana, and the definitive and living freedom from samsara [bondage] and nirvana [liberation], is itself liberation.

This is what is meant by samsara and nirvana being nondual [advaya] from the standpoint of dharmakāya.

That being said, it is crucial that these paradoxes are understood correctly, because otherwise the mind can attempt to grasp at these notions... which only results in nihilism. You end up with people who say 'oh there is nothing to do, everything is already perfect and there is nothing to attain nor anyone to attain it'... that is the delusion of the mind, which if identified with (and clung to) will sever any chance of liberation.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
'Freedom from extremes' means that you fail to locate anything which can accord with an extreme. In the mere appearance of X there is no X, nothing that can possibly (i) exist, (ii) not-exist, (iii) both, (iv) or neither. This isn't an assertion of non-existence, because non-existence would require something to have existed in the first place. When we recognize our nature, it is intimately understood that everything has been in a state of perfection, free of arising or cessation, from the very beginning (or since beginninglessness).

It isn't merely a metal position or a state of poisitonlessness like one is withholding assertion or refraining from imputing characteristics onto what appears. It is that within the very appearance itself, there is nothing that appears. You directly perceive that there has never, ever, been anything 'there'.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Especially since Dzogchen deals with reality as it is rather than ultimate/relative varients.

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen also deals with ultimate and relative variants, as was pointed out earlier in this thread:

Malcolm said:
Your problem is that you want to avoid any discussion of the relative. But Dzogchen tantras are not so shy, and they acknowledge the two truths also, as the String of Pearls states:
The universe and inhabitants have always been empty, 
the ultimate endowed with the form of the relative.

krodha wrote:
The only difference is that Dzogchen does not posit 'two truths', but rather the sole truth of vidyā. However for Madhyamaka the two-truth dichotomy is ultimately a pedagogical methodology, the 'two-truths' are valid for its path in relative application, but ultimately neither survive in the end, and the same is true for Dzogchen and its single truth. That doesn't deny the ability of these principles to provide direct experiential liberation, but when it comes down to it there is nothing that reality truly 'is', because reality cannot be found when sought.

When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional no [ultimate] truth can be found."
- Bodhicittavivaraṇa


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
There is reality. That is what we are trying to understand. ''Ultimately there is no reality'' is the same as saying that ultimately there is no information, no energy, no display. Dzogchen doesn't refute reality.

krodha wrote:
Yes it is the same as saying ultimately there is no information, no energy, no display (though non-arisen display does not cease).

For an example, even though ultimately this dichotomy (of dreaming and waking realities) is also unreal, in a relative sense and for the sake of the discussion; one can compare this principle to the appearance of information, energy and display in a dream. Is the appearance of information, energy and display encountered in a dream truly valid? Upon waking up from sleep, can that information, energy or display be found? No they cannot, and the same can be said for awakening in the context of our nature.

"The object of knowledge in dream is not seen when one awakes. Similarly the world disappears to him who is awakened from the darkness of ignorance. The creation of illusion is nothing but illusion. When everything is compound there is nothing which can be regarded as a real thing. Such is the nature of all things. As the figments of a dream dissolve upon waking, so the confusion of Samsara fades away in enlightenment."
- Mahāyānaviṁśikā

And if you want to attest that the application of this is different when it comes to Dzogpa Chenpo, Longchenpa begs to differ (as posted earlier in this thread):

"The significance of this can be summarized by the essential fact that, regardless of what manifests, even as it does so it has no independent nature:

'Sensory appearances, moreover, arise naturally due to the dynamic energy [rtsal] of awareness [rig pa], and so their nature is described in a purely symbolic way as one of interdependent connection [dependent origination]. Even in the very moment that things seem to arise due to that dynamic energy they do not do so without being subject to extremes or divisions - with no question of whether or not something arises - and even 'dynamic energy' is just a symbolic term, with no finite essence whatsoever. So within the context [dharmatā] that is never subject to transition or change, nothing strays in the slightest from awakened mind.'

Even the statement that things arise as samsara and nirvana due to the dynamic energy [rtsal] of awareness [rig pa] is merely conventional, for in essence nothing has ever existed as anything in the slightest - nothing being distinct in itself as the process of samsara or nirvana arising, or as some 'thing' that arises."
- chos dbyings rin po che'i mdzod ces bya ba'i 'grel pa

...and hence you have statements such as these:

"Everything arose from non-arising; even arising itself never arose."
- Vimalamitra [Per Malcolm]

"From that which involves no arising, everything arises; and in that very arising, there is no arising."
- Guhyagarbha Tantra


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Positing that ultimately there is no reality is a bit strange.

krodha wrote:
When you encounter a reflection of the moon in water, ultimately there is no moon.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
alpha said:
Doesn't this imply that once the budhahood has been achieved there will be a moment of instability at some point or another and the vidya will again fall into ignorance ? Doesnt this actually happen to practitioners all the time ?

krodha wrote:
Mere recognition of vidyā is initially unstable because karmic propensities have not been completely exhausted, buddhahood is not one's mere recognition of vidyā though, buddhahood is the result. Any propensities which have the potential for re-arising on the path are exhausted in buddhahood, and so the result therefore said to be irreversible. Buddhahood is described as a cessation, and what ceases is cause for the further arising and proliferation of delusion regarding the nature of phenomena.

For this reason, nirvana is said to be 'permanent', because due to the exhaustion of cause for the further proliferation of samsara, samsara no longer has any way to arise. However nirvana is also a conventional designation which is only relevant in relation to the delusion of samsara which has been exhausted, and so nirvana is nothing real that exists in itself either. Neither samsara nor nirvana can be found outside of the mind.

As Nāgārjuna states:
"Neither samsara nor nirvana exist;
instead, nirvana is the thorough knowledge of samsara"

Tsele Natsok Rangdrol states:
"You might ask, 'Why wouldn't confusion reoccur as before, after... [liberation has occured]?" This is because no basis [foundation] exists for its re-arising. Samantabhadra's liberation into the ground itself and the yogi liberated through practicing the path are both devoid of any basis [foundation] for reverting back to becoming a cause, just like a person who has recovered from a plague or the fruit of the se tree."

He then states that the se tree is a particular tree which is poisonous to touch, causing blisters and swelling. However once recovered, one is then immune.

Lopon Tenzin Namdak also explains this principle of immunity:
"Anyone who follows the teachings of the Buddhas will most likely attain results and purify negative karmic causes. Then that person will be like a man who has caught smallpox in the past; he will never catch it again because he is immune. The sickness of Samsara will never come back. And this is the purpose of following the teachings."


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
this is why it makes no sense to say the basis is one's unfabricated mind: ultimately there is no "you" or "your mind", you & your mind are appearances of the basis. otherwise you are making your mind the basis of the basis!

krodha wrote:
Ultimately there is no basis either. These are all conventions.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I'm a little confused. From "Treasury of Precious Qualities, Book Two", translator's introduction: In the context of the Great Perfection, thugs rje means, in the words of Yonten Gyamtso, “pure and unadulterated awareness that has not yet stirred from its own true condition or state,” but which has the potential to do so.

krodha wrote:
Jean-Luc Achard has said that thugs rje literally translates to "Lord [rje] of the heart [thugs]".


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 8:04 AM
Title: Re: Dhyana (samten) in Vajrayana, especially Dzogchen
Content:
alpha said:
One doesnt need to do shamata that way necessarily.
Doing A's , as Rinpoche mentions so many times with every webcast, leads to shamata in the initial stages and latter on to instant presence.
That is why he repeats this so many times because doing A's generates all the stability one needs.

krodha wrote:
True, he says "you should not think that in this practice there is an inexorable, 'bureaucratic', sequence of progressive stages... according to the Dzogchen teaching, if you see that a certain stage of the practice is not necessary then you can leave it our altogether! If on the contrary you are not succeeding in your practice with ease, then it is indispensable to 'conquer' the state of nepa [wyl. gnas pa, eng. calm state] by practicing fixation as much as possible."

I haven't heard him state that sounding the A is all one needs though. In the text I'm referencing [Introduction to the Practice of Contemplation] he presents the use of sound (sounding the 'A' and so on) as a supplementary tactic for coordinating fixation. I could see Song of Vajra being a sufficient practice for inducing the calm state, since it has some considerable length to it, but in only sounding the A alone one would have to do a considerable amount of A's. Whatever works for the individual is good though, we're all different.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: Dhyana (samten) in Vajrayana, especially Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
And according to Ontrul Tenpa'i Wangchuk [Per Lama Tony]: "The Adzom Drukpa camp puts the disciples to work on this [śamatha, etc.] for a period of four to five years. And Guru Mipham said:

'This is it! It might be causal ālaya, nevertheless, if you do not do it this way, authentic wisdom will not be born in your mindstream.'

Meaning that this is the method for placement of the mind! This method must be used and then, because of it, wisdom that is the result of the method can be realized."


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: Dhyana (samten) in Vajrayana, especially Dzogchen
Content:
Clarence said:
runs counter to what CNN says in all his webcasts?

krodha wrote:
Chögyal Namkhai Norbu says that śamatha [zhi gnas] is a vital preliminary that cannot be bypassed. Stating that the achievement of 'stable śamatha' (which eventually leads to 'released śamatha' ) is an indispensable aspect of Dzogchen practice, he says, "Here, this is the realization called stable shine. It is very important to achieve this state of stable shine, and you have to practice in order to attain it."

According to Rinpoche there is a natural progression of śamatha with the aim of attaining "the state of shine, that subsequently must become stable shine", and he advises practice which begins with fixation on an object, and then moves onto fixation without an object when the time is right.

Norbu Rinpoche states that in the beginning our śamatha is fabricated, but in time (when the state of śamatha is attained) śamatha becomes 'natural śamatha', however even 'natural śamatha' is an intermediate level. In order to progress from the intermediate levels of śamatha and achieve stable śamatha, practice has to be developed with gradual integration of movement, almost like training the three doors which occurs in the context of the natural state.

When stable śamatha is eventually achieved, the final step in śamatha is 'released śamatha', and Norbu Rinpoche states "When you have achieved released shine and remain in the continuation of this state, you have finally become a Dzogchen practitioner."

He also describes four main defects of practice which must be remedied when necessary: (i) torpor [bying ba], (ii) obfuscation [rmugs pa], (iii) agitation [rgod pa], (iv) dispersion [thor ba]. Urging that for senior practitioners it is of utmost importance to be vigilant regarding the fourth 'thor ba'.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 2nd, 2014 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The basis is only valid conventionally if you hold to a view of the base. Any view you have about the base is conceptual and it is only through the use of concepts that we believe we might 'know' what the basis is and that it is valid conventionally . However, as is stated in Kunjed Gyalpo:

"Views create the base for seeing the real condition. Views are methods to experience (meaning). But, because there is no object to be conceived as the unborn (essence), when practitioners look, there is nothing to be seen in just-thatness."

Taking a scholarly view and trying to work out what the basis is, leads to adopting a position. Adopting a position, by for example asserting that the basis is one's unfabricated mind, doesn't really lead to anything other than holding to a dogma.

The strange thing about dharmakaya is that really it can't be pointed out. That ambiguity of not finding and of not being able to hold on to dharmakaya is significant. It is a very useful ambiguity. In the case of Dzogchen, ambiguity and wisdom are not that different.

Wisdom here in Dzogchen, does not mean you are able to descriminate objects and see clearly a well-defined position. The idea of wisdom as being powerful knowledge is a myth here. 'Dzogchen Wisdom', where you embrace ambiguity, is just the fact of life itself. So wisdom has no goal. It just the display. You don't need to have wisdom/enlightenment in order to see how things really are. So you don't need to find mind or establish a basis.

Giving up the need to know is part of the way focused meditation works in Dzogchen. Dzogchen is about letting go of dogma, of self-libertaing positions, of not holding to a position that delineates itself from other philosophical positions, even awareness has no when or where. There is a need to give up Dzogchen as well - or give up the kind of cowardly Dzogchen that is used to sepearate you from others based on how refined your view is.

krodha wrote:
No Andrew, it's only valid conventionally because it is empty, but glad to see you're still spouting the same rhetoric you left the other forum with.

In your attempt to critique my point you make it for me. Even supplying a quote to show how the basis is conventional.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 2nd, 2014 at 3:30 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
Personally I prefer terms like authentic, valid, true, and such over "exists". "Exists" suggests something manifest, and therefore conditioned phenomena. Obviously the Base is not conditioned phenomena.

krodha wrote:
The basis is valid conventionally, sure.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 2nd, 2014 at 2:46 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
smcj said:
So therefore if ChNN disagrees with those that assert that "the Base as conceived in Dzogchen does not exist", he is asserting that the Base as conceived in Dzogchen does exist, right?

krodha wrote:
The basis is ka dag and therefore free of extremes. The extremes that conditioned phenomena adhere to, such as existence and non-existence, arise due to ignorance of the basis.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 2nd, 2014 at 10:28 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Malcolm said:
The general basis (spyi gzhi, not gzhi gzhi) is just a set of characteristics...

krodha wrote:
So 'gshis' and 'gzhi' are just alternate phonetic renderings of the same Tibetan term [གཞི]?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 5:06 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
Capriles states that the gshis in reference to the basis [gzhi] is pointing to the ngo bo [essence] of the basis. He states that in Kagyu terminology the meaning of gshis is loosely the same as the meaning of ngo bo in the teachings of the Nyingmapa. For this reason 'gshis' ends up being paired with 'ngo bo' to elucidate this notion 'ngo bo gshis', and this term is used to reference the ngo bo aspect [essence] of the basis shining forth, which is the first level of realization associated with the gdangs mode of manifestation of energy, correlating to the (non-arising of the) inner dbyings [inner subjective dimension and reference point] and the dharmakāya.

So gshis gzhi is apparently referencing the true condition of the essence of the basis, which once ascertained reveals self originated primordial wisdom [rang byung ye shes].


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 2:56 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
"neutral noetic capacity in the basis". its amazing that everyone just lets that slip by, like its just plain ol' Buddhism.

krodha wrote:
For the most part it just seems like a proposed solution to the issue of reconciling how the noetic capacity which either expresses itself as wisdom or deluded consciousness initially forms.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 2:09 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
so who fails to recognize the basis?

krodha wrote:
The neutral noetic capacity [shes pa lung ma bstan] in the basis. This is of course simply regurgitating what has been covered in past conversations between you and Malcolm on this matter.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 1:50 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
ok then, sentient beings proceedeth from the basis.

krodha wrote:
Only sound, light and rays proceedeth from the basis. Sentient beings proceedeth from non-recognition of the basis.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 12:28 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
kind of, except it could be said that all there is is sentience and the so-called "external universe" is just projections of sentience (that is, sentient beings, who are themselves "projections" of the basis, as it were)

krodha wrote:
The outer and inner dbyings arise when the thugs rje isn't recognized as self-display, causing the rtsal to be reified as conditioned phenomenal existents.

I wouldn't say wisdom and 'sentience' are synonymous in any way. Also, the basis doesn't project anything, 'projections' occur via sems.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 11:55 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
If alpha is referring to what I think he is, ChNNR says there that "gshis gzhi" has the same meaning as "dharmadhatu", and he describes it as "the basis of everything". His point, in contrasting it with the gzhi, is that the gzhi is the state or condition of an individual, as opposed to the gshis gzhi.

krodha wrote:
I had always been under the impression that the so called external universe [outer dbyings] (which would constitute everything other than the individual) in its fundamental nature, is the rtsal of the gzhi.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
alpha said:
That is the model CNNr has explained more than three decades ago in a talk where he clearly differentiates two kinds of basis.He calls it "gshis gzhi" and he says that if one finds himself  in the condition of "gshis gzhi" , one goes beyond time and becomes one with everything where he integrates with the entire field of phenomena.Rinpoche also makes a parallel and speaks of similarities between this state -gshis gzhi-and the state of the hindus when they talk about being one with Brahma.

krodha wrote:
Thanks! I take it this may be the same thing, or similar: Rangjung Yeshe Wiki has 'ye gzhi'i gshis' (condition of the primordial basis).

http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/ye_gzhi%27i_gshis

The dichotomy is interesting though. So the gshis gzhi correlates to the outer dbyings, and the gzhi to the inner dbyings?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 8:35 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:


alpha said:
There are two kinds of basis.
One is universal and is the state of all things, all phenomena, beings, trees, rocks. mountains, this universe that universe and the basis of the individual which refers to a specific condition.

krodha wrote:
Is this a reference to the dual basis model? Basis [gzhi] and all-basis [kun gzhi]?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the basis is the basis of all phenomena of samsara and nirvana, including sentient beings and their minds. A mirror is the basis for all reflections, but it is not contained in the reflections. You said "The basis is a generic set of qualities, essence, nature and compassion, that all minds possess.". This is like saying "The mirror is a generic set of qualities that all reflections possess." This makes no sense.

krodha wrote:
It would be more like saying "The capacity to reflect is a generic quality that all mirrors posses", or "The capacity to reflect is a generic quality which is naturally implied where reflections are present." Where you find a capacity to reflect, you find reflections. Where you find water, you find wetness. Where you find fire, you find heat. Where you find a mind, you find a latent and discoverable nature.

Granted this is a somewhat off topic, but insisting on taking the metaphor of the mirror literally (and implementing the notion of the mirror itself) lends to the idea that there is a 'something' (no matter how subtle or allegedly inconceivable) that the basis is. So running with that logic, naturally the line of reasoning goes that the mirror would be the basis for reflections yet would not be contained in the reflections themselves, so you set yourself up with this 'something other' which is a source, much like in Vedanta.

Personally I don't think that the metaphor is meant to be used in quite that way, and not every teacher implements the mirror-metaphor in that manner. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu for example (in referencing the mirror-metaphor), implements the notion of the mirror's innate capacity or potentiality to reflect (rather than the mirror itself), and seeks to convey how the reflections are not found apart from that capacity, and not at all where that capacity is absent. In this way the mirror itself is an extraneous aspect of the metaphor and it isn't necessary to explore the mirror itself, or the literal implications of reflections requiring a reflective surface or substance, that is going too far in my opinion. The main point is that capacity to reflect. A mirror, or a body of water have that capacity, and where that capacity is present you find reflection. That capacity is nothing in itself though, and is only ever known through the display of the reflections themselves.

"Our primordial potentiality is beyond form, but we have a symbol, and when we have a symbol then we can get in that knowledge. It is very easy to understand with an example. If you want to discover the potentiality of a mirror, how can you go about it? You can neither see or touch the nature or potentiality of a mirror, nor can you have contact with it in any ordinary way, the only way is to look in a mirror, and then the reflections will appear and through the reflections you can discover it. The reflections are not really the potentiality of the mirror but they are manifesting through that potentiality, so they are something visible for us. With this example we can get in the knowledge of the potentiality of the mirror..."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

"Why then do we have this symbol of primordial potentiality? Primordial potentiality in the Dzogchen teaching is explained with three principles: sound, light and rays. This does not mean that sound, light and rays are manifestations, but rather that these are the root of all manifestations. When you have this potentiality then there is always the possibility of manifestations. If we wonder, for example what the potentiality of a mirror looks like, we couldn't say very much, we could say for example that it is clear, pure, limpid and so forth, but we could not really have contact with it directly through our senses. In the same way sound, light and rays are the essence of potentiality. When we have this potentiality, if secondary causes arise, then anything can manifest. 
What do we mean by secondary causes? For example, if in front of a mirror there is tree, or a flower or a person, the object instantly manifests. These are secondary causes. So if there is no secondary cause there is no manifestation. Thus in front of our primordial potentiality there are all the possibilities of manifestation of the secondary causes..."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

Something I wrote some time ago on here:
...The mirror-analogy is commonly used in attempting to describe the 'nature of mind' and there is a common misconception which tends to arise from this analogy because the implementation of a mirror seems to convey a substantiated background (or unchanging source). I was attempting to point out that the analogy isn't meant to explore the mirror in itself as an unchanging basis, but solely the mirror's capacity to reflect. So the capacity is the aspect the analogy is exploring. Equating the nature of mind to the mirror's reflective capacity (but not the mirror itself). That the reflections are inseparable from that capacity, just like AEN elucidated with the fire-to-heat and water-to-wetness examples. That capacity isn't a conceivable quality, it isn't something which can be 'known' as a substantiated suchness. The capacity (to reflect) cannot be rolled, thrown or bounced, it has no shape, color, location, weight or height. There is nothing there one can point to and declare 'there it is!'. Yet in it's elusiveness it is still fully apparent in the presence of the reflections themselves. The capacity is evident because of the reflections and the reflections are evident because of the capacity, in truth they co-emergent and mutually interdependent qualities which are completely inseparable. Evident, clear and pure, yet unestablished, ungraspable and ephemeral.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
("creative power" = "rtsal")
I find the phrase "there is no question of its not arising" kind of intriguing. It doesn't seem to explain much.

krodha wrote:
Relevant excerpt from Longchenpa's chos dbyings rin po che'i mdzod ces bya ba'i 'grel pa (found on page 72 of Barron's 'A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission'):

"The significance of this can be summarized by the essential fact that, regardless of what manifests, even as it does so it has no independent nature:

'Sensory appearances, moreover, arise naturally due to the dynamic energy [rtsal] of awareness [rig pa], and so their nature is described in a purely symbolic way as one of interdependent connection [dependent origination]. Even in the very moment that things seem to arise due to that dynamic energy they do not do so without being subject to extremes or divisions - with no question of whether or not something arises - and even 'dynamic energy' is just a symbolic term, with no finite essence whatsoever. So within the context [dharmatā] that is never subject to transition or change, nothing strays in the slightest from awakened mind.'

Even the statement that things arise as samsara and nirvana due to the dynamic energy [rtsal] of awareness [rig pa] is merely conventional, for in essence nothing has ever existed as anything in the slightest - nothing being distinct in itself as the process of samsara or nirvana arising, or as some 'thing' that arises."


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
- Padmasambhava


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 1st, 2014 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
The 'basis' is a basis because (i) it is yet to be recognized, and (ii) it is the basis for the paths of delusion and liberation. Once the basis is recognized it is no longer the basis, it becomes the path (of liberation), and when the path reaches its culmination it is then the result. Buddhas don't have a basis, they have the highest wisdom (which is simply what one would term 'the basis' in its fully unobscured expression, yet that wisdom is also an abstraction when it comes down to it).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 2:55 PM
Title: Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind
Content:
Sherlock said:
The view that Malcolm described, if his translations are accurate, resolves this problem: the basis is not a universal nature underlying all phenomena like in Samkhya. Maybe there is some way to resolve 'the universe arising out of the basis' idea with the basis being one's unfabricated mind, I don't know but I would find that interesting, but at least for now, it is enough for me that it distinguishes the Dzogchen view from Samkhya.

krodha wrote:
The universe arises out of the basis because it results from the non-recognition of the basis. The noetic capacity which recognizes or does-not-recognize, and the aspect of compassion which is or isn't recognized (to be self-appearance), are also aspects of the basis.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 27th, 2014 at 3:14 PM
Title: Re: Why all the confusion ?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Atanavat, do you live in an area where it is easy to find a teacher? I feel that would be beneficial for you. You're pursuing some tangential lines of reasoning which are predicated on misconceptions. Granted you are doing so to gain some clarification which is good, and hopefully you'll get some clarification on this thread, but a teacher would be able to answer these questions... might be something to consider.

Your contention that a lot of Buddhism doesn't make sense and is self-contradictory means you aren't understanding Buddhism correctly.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 27th, 2014 at 1:30 PM
Title: Re: Bay Area Buddhist Question on how to release live animal
Content:
catlady2112 said:
I live in the San Francisco Bay area and I want to do that practice where you buy live animals and release them.  Unfortunately it is dangerous to buy certain animals and release them in the wrong environment (like putting non-saltwater fish in the salty bay) because you will cause their death. What are some safe animals/critters to buy in the bay area?  And where can you release them in an environment where they have a chance to survive?

krodha wrote:
I'm from the bay area as well. Perhaps you can look into the local fisheries; crab, lobster, oyster and so on (depending on the season). I'm sure you would be able to purchase them from the fishery and find a safe place to release them, preferably somewhere far from where they are usually caught but still in a suitable habitat.

Either that, or maybe research the local fish which are caught in the area.

Be sure to give them the A' A HA SHA SA MA and dedicate the merit!


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 27th, 2014 at 10:34 AM
Title: Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
Mind and consciousness (as terms in themselves) may have subtle nuances associated with their respective definitions, but for the most part they are generally held to be synonymous.

An example being this statement from Nāgārjuna in his Bodhicittavivaraṇa:

For those who propound consciousness [only]
This manifold world is established as mind [only]


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: I am no longer a Buddhist.
Content:
krodha wrote:
Attachment and aversion are the binding factors. Badges and labels are just useful conventions.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: Experience/sense fields/non-duality- Practice noticing T
Content:
krodha wrote:
Thomas, you may find the topics in this link relevant and informative...

Substantial and insubstantial nonduality:
https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/substantial-and-insubstantial-non.html?m=1

Mahāmudra, Dzogchen and the buddhadharma in general fall under the latter (insubstantial). Traditions such as Advaita Vedanta and the like usually fall under the former (substantial).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: I am no longer a Buddhist.
Content:
krodha wrote:
"The teachings must become a living knowledge in all one's daily activities. This is the essence of the practice, and besides that there is nothing in particular to be done. A monk, without giving up his vows, can perfectly well practice Dzogchen, as can a Catholic priest, a clerk, a workman, and so on, without having to abandon their role in society, because Dzogchen does not change people from the outside. Rather it awakens them internally. The only thing a Dzogchen master will ask is that one observes oneself, to gain the awareness needed to apply the teachings in everyday life."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 21st, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: I am no longer a Buddhist.
Content:
philji said:
Wear your badge with pride
" I am a Buddhist"
Or " I am not a Buddhist"
Both are badges.

dzogchungpa said:
How about this one:


?

krodha wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
smcj said:
The Kagyu approach to Dharma can best be likened to the Nike Shoe slogan; Just Do It.

krodha wrote:
They're ten steps ahead of you!


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
Rakshasa said:
In one experience, she woke up paralyzed suddenly one morning and saw an old lady sitting on her bosom and speaking in some ancient dialect in a straight face (which freaked her out, but she couldn't move). She called her mom, and her mom and some of the sisters confirmed that some of them have experienced the same thing some time in life (they live in different cities). It apparently had to do with an ancestor who faced great injustice, which I am not completely aware of, and wouldn't really like to go there.

krodha wrote:
It's called 'old hag syndrome', which is a common theme found in episodes of sleep paralysis spanning every culture for most of recorded history. Very interesting that everyone sees the old hag, and it is said that the hag is sometimes accompanied by a dark presence which stands and watches in the background. I've never experienced it myself but it sounds like quite the unnerving event to go though... good dharma practice!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
pensum said:
Your definition of wisdom ( ye shes ), which i have highlighted above, does not appear (to me anyway) to concur with Tulku Urgyen's own, for he stated that "it is an original ( ye ) wakefulness ( shes pa ) that is not dependent upon an object." He also stated that rig pa and rang byung ye shes are often synonymous: " Rang byung ye shes is also called rig pa." Though of course it is always important to keep in mind that the specific definition of rig pa varies depending upon the context.

krodha wrote:
Right, it is a shes pa that does not depend upon objects, because it knows the non-arising nature [dharmatā] of so-called objects [dharmins]. Therefore it does not arise concomitantly with objects. Shes pa which arises concomitantly with an object is fabricated by definition since it takes on the guise of being a fixed reference point existing in relation to objects.

The kun byed rgyal po states:
"Self-originated wisdom [rang byung ye shes] is the primordial nature of vidyā [rig pa]; wisdom that realizes an object, because it arises from that object, is not self-originated."

Also as Malcolm has pointed out; that wisdom arises from oneself, it is one's own wisdom, that is the other aspect of its meaning.

Rig pa is only equivalent to rang byung ye shes if it is knowledge of one's nature. Rig pa can also represent one's mere clarity of mind which is associated with the vijñāna skandha. Though rigpa as mere clarity is a provisional and deluded expression which is by no means definitive like rang byung rig pa. So yes context is vital.

At any rate, here is the definition of wisdom from the rig pa rang shar per Malcolm:
"If one knows [shes] the buddhahood that has always been [ye] naturally formed by nature, 
there will be buddhahood of clear realization. 
That is the definition of wisdom [ye shes]."


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 7:13 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
This is what it gets down to. This basic awareness that comes before any elaborate cognitions, "selfs", identities.
It is not an entity, but it is what defines all living organisms, sentient beings, buddhas.
it is what senses, even without sense organs, other objects.
If you think that organisms without sense organs cannot be aware of objects
then look at the body's immune system.

Individual beings are developments from it
and because of the endless variety of conditions
it manifests differently as the composite arising of thoughts, of beings.
That's why I say that ultimately, everything is either a manifestation of(this basic) awareness,
or an object of awareness.

What are the Sanskrit / Tibetan  words for this basis?
"Yeshe" (ye shes)?

krodha wrote:
The 'awareness' as 'what senses' that abides prior to, during, and after various cognitions correlates to the 'neutral indeterminate awareness' [shes pa] mentioned earlier in this thread. Although for most sentient beings that shes pa is so wrapped up in deluded cognition and imputation that it is essentially mind [sems] and consciousness [rnam shes], because it has become compromised through fixation on those afflictive processes. The knowing aspect is rig pa, however since it has become associated with deluded cognitions and does not know its state it is ignorance [ma rig pa].

Wisdom [ye shes] is what that neutral shes pa becomes while in recognition of one's nature. The sanskrit etymology makes this quite clear in that wisdom [jñāna] and afflicted consciousness [vijñāna] are opposites of each other (shown by the presence or absence of the prefix 'vi'). Not because they truly are different capacities, but because the former; jñāna [ye shes] is the manner in which that indeterminate awareness [skt. jñatā, tib. shes pa] expresses itself when it knows its nature, and the latter; vijñāna [rnam shes] is the way that same indeterminate awareness [skt. jñatā, tib. shes pa] is expressed when it is ignorant of its nature. The factor that makes the difference is the knowledge [skt. vidyā, tib. rig pa], or ignorance [skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa] of one's nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
krodha wrote:
Here are the sixfold faulty definitions of the basis [gzhi] from The Six Dimensions of Samantabhadra in case anyone is interested. Compiled from David Germano's and Tsele Natsok Rangdrol's translations of this section:

There are two types of understanding in reference to the basis [gzhi]:

(a) The basis as an object of knowledge held to be absolute.
(b) The basis as original purity [ka dag].

(a) The Basis as an Object of Knowledge held to be Absolute:

It has six aspects (all of which are inaccurate).

(i) The belief that the basis is spontaneously present.
(ii) The belief that the basis is indefinite.
(iii) The belief that it is the definite and determinate foundation.
(iv) The belief that it is totally changeable.
(v) The belief that it can be said to be anything whatsoever.
(vi) The belief that it is multifaceted with various aspects.

These six aspects are faulty beliefs. They are partial and biased and should not be accepted in this context as the true basis. Through them you would have no more than a partial understanding of the natural state.

The following is the seventh understanding of the basis which is held to be the single accurate view.

(b) The basis as original purity [ka dag]:

(vii) Original purity [ka dag].


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 17th, 2014 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
conebeckham said:
Actually, I don't know that Malcolm's most recent postings are "CNNR" approved, so to speak.

smcj said:
There was another thread where Malcolm quoted ChNN as saying Dzogchen was best understood from the Prasangika perspective and definitely not the Shentong. (Seeing the "basis" as an undifferentiated reality would be taking a Shentong perspective I believe.) I take Malcolm at his word.

krodha wrote:
"That view established intellectually we need to establish consciously in dependence upon one’s capacity of knowledge and on convention. The way of establishing that is the system of Prasanga Madhyamaka commented upon by the great being Nāgārjuna and his followers. There is no system of view better than that."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

"...Madhyamaka explains with the four 'beyond concepts,' which are that something neither exists, nor does not exist, nor both exists and does not exist, nor is beyond both existing and not existing together. These are the four possibilities. What remains? Nothing. Although we are working only in an intellectual way, this can be considered the ultimate conclusion in Madhyamaka. As an analytical method, this is also correct for Dzogchen. Nagarjuna's reasoning is supreme."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 17th, 2014 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
kirtu said:
I hesitate to mention this, and I don't know if it is a bhuta, but I knew a boy (he was 14 at the time) in Hawaii who created a presence for protection from his family, esp. from a step-parent.  He did this based on concentration and invocation of spirits (so sorcery of sorts).  The kids in the family felt the presence and on at least two occasions so did the step-parent.  This presence stayed until they moved.

Kirt

krodha wrote:
Sounds more like tulpa phenomena, but definitely in that same genre, and just as interesting.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 4:51 PM
Title: Re: is there a teacher in the house? or at least some advice
Content:
rubix said:
Don't need a teacher the visions are done.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 16th, 2014 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
krodha wrote:
What causes bhūtas to be tied to a certain location? I've lived quite a few places in the bay area where I grew up, and a couple years ago I did some frequent moving due to different circumstances, but I remember distinctly that there was an uncomfortable and almost ominous presence at one place I was living, and then the next place I moved was just fine. Then after moving yet again, the next location was (once again) very heavy and uncomfortable, to the point that I actually moved apartments in the same building because of it (and the next apartment - within the same building - wasn't all that much better), but then after moving away from there, the next place was great with a wonderful atmosphere.

For awhile I was attempting to reconcile the fact that these entities were my own projections, however that didn't seem to be the case, especially if the atmosphere was changing (from uncomfortable to wonderful) every time I moved.

I remember the one location (that was so bad that I had to change apartments in the same building), was so intense that the janitor said he didn't even like to go in there to do maintenance, and if he did he said he would not spend more than five minutes in there. It truly was horrid.

So I suppose the bhūtas were tied to those specific locations? How does this occur?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
krodha wrote:
I like this central theme you have going on lately dzogchungpa, more and more sense being made every day

dzogchungpa said:
Yeah, you air types are always a bit wacky.

Malcolm said:
I have virgo rising, keeps my feet on the ground.

dzogchungpa said:
Now it all makes sense.
So what's up with all the cig car rhetoric?

Malcolm said:
It's rhetorical.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, now it all makes sense.
Thanks for the "clarification", "Malcolm".

Malcolm said:
I thought you understood that Kyle was my emanation...

dzogchungpa said:
A Nirmalcolmkaya! Now it all makes sense.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I went with the english translation for added effect.

heart said:
So you know how to spell in Swedish then? Perhaps you are a Dane?

/magnus

krodha wrote:
Ha I wish I could spell in Swedish, you told me a long time ago that it translates to Tigershield!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
heart said:
Like I said, rigpa doesn't last. That is the meaning of "not ripened" and so on.

/magnus

asunthatneversets said:
Seems we are in agreement then, Sir Tigershield.


heart said:
The spelling is a bit off but I of course feels honored by your interest in my persona.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
I went with the english translation for added effect.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
monktastic said:
(1) Recognize baby / unripened / conceptual rigpa (a partial but sufficient recognition of the nature of the mind)
(2) Practice trekcho and successively release grasping
(3) Recognize rangjung rigpa with certainty (realization)
(4) Stabilize it

Teachers seem to vary in whether and how often they admit this distinction between "baby" and "rangjung" rigpa, and even me saying it here may be harmful. On the other hand, many students may be helped by understanding this (and my teacher agrees that it makes sense to share).

krodha wrote:
Yes, this is true in what I see as well. The mere clarity of mind is also given the name 'rigpa', because it truly is rigpa in essence. However it does not know wisdom, and so it is simply the cognizance [of mind] which is the mere 'noticing' of the stillness and movement of conditioned relative mind. It is a sufficient foundation for Dzogchen practice, but it shouldn't be mistaken as the definitive rigpa of the path [rang byung rig pa] which knows its state. The definitive discernment is not present in the mere clarity of mind. Not until the nature of mind [sems nyid] is recognized.

Both Tsoknyi Rinpoche and his father Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche point this difference out:

"This early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness [of mind] or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing awareness [rang byung rig pa].
Great masters traditionally give something called pointing-out instruction, which literally means bringing one face to face with one's true nature. What is this nature that is being introduced? A practitioner of shamatha who has cultivated a sense of stillness to the extent that there is no longer any dividing point between thought occurrence and simply resting experiences a certain quality of knowing or presence of mind. This knowing is what the practitioner is brought face to face with - or rather, the very identity of this knowing as being rootless and groundless, insubstantial. By recognizing this, one is introduced to self-existing awareness, rangjung rigpa."
- Tsoknyi Rinpoche

"In the case of stillness, occurrence and noticing, the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing awareness is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth."
- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 14th, 2014 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
heart said:
The point he seems to be doing is that ignorant sentient beings are actually full blown Buddha's, vidya in this sense is probably better translated as cognizance as Erik used to do. He isn't really making the point that vidya needs a gradual improvement as some seems to think.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
The point is that vidyā, while in essence is undefiled, can become associated with the contamination of non-recognition, karmic traces and habitual tendencies which cause it to become confused, and when that occurs vidyā becomes one's mere clarity [cognizance] of mind.

"General delusion [avidyā] is caused by the stain of vidyā [rig pa] not recognizing the manifest basis, through which vidyā itself becomes polluted with delusion. Though vidyā itself is without the stains of cognition, it becomes endowed with stains, and through its becoming enveloped in the seal of mind, the vidyā of the ever pure essence is polluted by conceptualization. Chained by the sixfold manas, it is covered with the net of the body of partless atoms, and the luminosity becomes latent."
- Longchenpa

It is true that these afflictive traces are empty from the very beginning, however that doesn't mean we are innately in recognition of this, and even after recognition of wisdom has occurred, traces still continue to surface. This is why the nature of mind is not equivalent to primordial wisdom, because the nature of mind is endowed with traces which must be exhausted through familiarization with the view.

The 'gradual improvement' or refinement of vidyā is the entire path of Dzogchen. Beginning with the ignorance [avidyā] of a sentient being where vidyā appears as the mere indeterminate clarity of mind, one then seeks to recognize the nature of mind. Once recognition of the mind's nature has occurred avidyā is then overturned, but karma is still arising incessantly and habitually. It is true that while resting in the view, those karmic propensities arise as wisdom, but in the beginning the individual will eventually succumb to those propensities, distraction will ensue and the view will be temporarily lost (just as you said, this is the point where rigpa doesn't last). As a result of this oscillation between distraction and vidyā, practice is divided between meditation (effortless resting in the natural state) and post-meditation (everyday relative experience). Meditation and post-meditation are not fully intermingled until the path of no more learning, which is essentially buddhahood.

Dharmakāya (as unobscured buddha mind) only becomes fully evident once obscurations and traces are cleared. The less one's knowledge of wisdom is obstructed, the more 'refined' one's vidyā becomes:

From the Necklace of Precious Pearls Tantra:
"The dharmakāya is the exhaustion of contamination."

and

"When divested of this mind, one is expansively awakened into buddhahood."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, that is not the meaning of "unripened", the meaning of unripened, as clearly explained in the VIma Nyingthig, is that vidyā is defined as an awareness that defiled by many cognitions. In this case there is really no difference between what is termed the clarity aspect of the mind and vidyā.

krodha wrote:
So these first two of Vimalamitra's five definitions are essentially synonymous?

The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: “the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names”, is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions. 

The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis [i.e. the human body] creates all cognitions when present in one’s body, and is present as the mere intrinsic clarity [of those cognitions] is called “unripened vidyā”.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 2:02 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
heart said:
Like I said, rigpa doesn't last. That is the meaning of "not ripened" and so on.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
Seems we are in agreement then, Sir Tigershield.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
krodha wrote:
From Dudjom Rinpoche:
"Similarly: first, the rigpa [vidyā] of having had the introduction is like the first part of the early dawn; in the middle, the rigpa of having gained assurance, free from equipoise and post-attainment is like the daybreak; and finally the rigpa of having gained liberation from extremes is like the sun shining."

And Mipham Rinpoche states:
"The training of rigpa comes in three steps: recognition, training and finalization."

Dudjom Lingpa:
“Having simply identified vidyā, some people, who lack even a trace of any meditation, claim they have experienced the extinction into dharmatā and there is nothing more to spiritual awakening than this. That is an enormous mistake! The qualities of realization mature through the power of gradual practice. This is how you must reach the state of liberation."

And wrote this some time ago:
...to unpack the way rigpa relates to conditioning further:

The knowing capacity of mind i.e. clarity is the most coarse form of rig pa [skt. vidyā]. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu calls it 'rigpa mistaken as illusory mind'. He also refers to it by the name Vimalamitra gave it, which is 'the vidyā that apprehends characteristics'...

Defined by Vimalamitra here:
"The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: 'the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names', is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions." [Per Malcolm]

It is 'rigpa' because it is the same capacity which is refined with insight, but that coarse form of rigpa is simply the mere knowing of mind. Knowing which is associated with dualistic perception is a defiled cognition. As opposed to knowing associated with the kāyas, which is the rigpa which serves as the basis, path and result in Dzogchen.

Until the clarity of mind is recognized as non-arisen, via recognition of the nature of mind [tib. sems nyid, skt. cittatā] the discerning vidyā of the path is not present. Once the nature of mind is directly ascertained, primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes] also becomes evident, and the discerning knowledge which subsequently results is the vidyā that serves as the foundation for liberation, because it knows the kāyas. Which is to say that there is no mistake about what one's nature is. That vidyā, is the antithesis of avidyā [delusion], and can effectively discern mind, and ālaya (afflictive basis of mind) from the dharmakāya.

For most, that (discerning) vidyā comes on as a flash of experiential insight, however due to karmic propensities it isn't stable and fluctuates. For that reason one's initial discernment is termed 'unripened vidyā'. Vidyā ripens via the dissolution of karmic traces which sustain delusion and obscure wisdom. The process of ripening is the path, and when afflictive traces are completely exhausted, one realizes emptiness and the path becomes the result i.e. vidyā as dharmakāya.

It is the same rigpa all along, refined through insight and integration, however the rigpa as mere knowing (cognizance) isn't equivalent to the full measure of rigpa as dharmakāya. Not due to being two separate rigpas, but due to the former being mind and the latter being completely emancipated from mind.

"That being so, it is very important to distinguish mind and wisdom because all meditation is just that: all methods of purifying vāyu and vidyā are that; and in the end at the time of liberation, vidyā is purified of all obscurations because it is purified of the mind."
-- Stainless Space by Longchenpa [per Malcolm]


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
heart said:
I don't think that is correct, according to the teachings I received rigpa is never imperfect or underdeveloped.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
Searched for a few citations on this, here is one from Jean-Luc Achard which is good:

"Saying that Rigpa is impermanent does not make it a mental factor. Rather in the logic texts of Dzogchen that we have in Bon, Rig pa is styled as impermanent [mi rtag pa] because it's actual experience (be it visionary or not, no matter), depends on one's recognition of it or not. The natural state is defined as permanent [rtag pa] because it is eternal [g.yung drung], immutable [mi 'gyur], etc., and whether we realize it or not, it does not matter from its side. But so long as we regress from this state of total Knowledge, then we're in impermanence. When realization has dawned in the continuum and we don't regress from it, we are 'permanently' in this state. Actually, it's the diachrony of language that forces us to use these distinctions: when one does not regress from Rigpa, the notions of permanence and impermanence have not any importance anymore.

If Rigpa was not impermanent, we would be in its state constantly. This is not the case since we are in ignorance and dualistic grasping most of the time. This sad situation is essentially due to distraction. Rig pa fluctuates: until we are sufficiently familiarized with it (through retreats for instance with hours longs contemplation sessions), we are in a state defined as unripened Awareness [ma smin pa'i rig pa]. Others would translated this as 'immature intrinsic awareness'.

Dante wrote: 
I dont recall seeing any Dzogchen texts where rigpa is considered to be like that

Jean-Luc wrote:
You can find it in some of Longchenpa's works when he describes the arising of the rigpa 'from within' the Base. You can read it in the Precious Tresury of Words and Meaning [Tshig don rin po che’i mdzod], in which he says p. 192-193 (more or less, sorry my translation into english is not as accurate as i would it to be since i translated back from the french):

'Thus, since Awareness [skt. vidyā, tib. rig pa] which as flashed out of the Base is not (yet entirely) ripened, one errs in the six destinies of the three realms because of (our) individual karma, and this (means being) first deluded because of the twelve links of interdependency…'

(p. 192 : de yang rig pa gzhi nas ‘phags te ma smin pas khams gsum rigs drug tu so so’i las kyis ‘khor ba de yang dang po rten ‘brel bcu gnyis las ‘phrul te…). In the Yabzhi, there are several other similar occurences. If you want another version of the above passage, see Buddha Mind, p. 209. At the level at which this description of Rigpa takes place, Rigpa is defined as unripened, or immature on non-entirely sublimated [ma smin pa] because it remains a potential for discerning our real nature, not a de facto data. Its liberating qualities are not YET entirely expressed and will be so more or less until Buddhahood is reached. Rigpa is the knowledge of the natural state, as long as we are not Buddhas, it's important to make the distinction. Actually, more precisely, Rigpa is the Discernment that enables us to distinguish mind (sems, as a discursive ego-centered grasping) from Mind itself (sems-nyid, as the pure nature of mind). Without this fundamental Dis-cernment, we are certain to remain in the identification with sems (not with sems-nyid)."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
Simon E. said:
Its worth emphasising that none of us are smart enough to get this by figuring it out.

asunthatneversets said:
This discussion regarding the so-called gradual refinement of rigpa isn't really a case of trying to figure anything out. It is a common theme found in these teachings.

Simon E. said:
I notice that you did not quote my second sentence. Which was the main point of my post.

krodha wrote:
Well, that part goes without saying.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
Simon E. said:
Its worth emphasising that none of us are smart enough to get this by figuring it out.

krodha wrote:
This discussion regarding the so-called gradual refinement of rigpa isn't really a case of trying to figure anything out. It is a common theme found in these teachings.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
krodha wrote:
This of course also depends on the capacity of the individual concerned. As referenced in the initial post with 'cig car rhetoric' framing the instantaneous path. However cig car ba's, being as rare as stars in the daytime, is not a title I would gather any of us here could go by. So there is a bit of gradual refinement that occurs with each of our respective rigpas, and that 'process' takes on varying forms, as we are all different.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
smcj said:
The phrase "a little bit pregnant" comes to mind.

asunthatneversets said:
Primordial wisdom [ye shes] is originally pure and self-perfected. However your knowledge [rig pa] of that wisdom is not, and requires refinement, that is the path.

heart said:
Rigpa just not lasting so long, there is nothing imperfect or undeveloped with it.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
It's termed 'unripened' vidyā. Which isn't imperfect in itself, but since latent propensities don't allow one to rest in vidyā without distraction it can be termed 'imperfect' or 'undeveloped' when placed in the context of the refinement that occurs between the initial introduction and the result.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen rhetoric and the gradual / instant dichotomy
Content:
smcj said:
The path is gradual, not the state, but then that is true of every path in Vajrayana.
The phrase "a little bit pregnant" comes to mind.

krodha wrote:
Primordial wisdom [ye shes] is originally pure and self-perfected. However your knowledge [rig pa] of that wisdom is not, and requires refinement, that is the path.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: Prevalance of the experience and some advanced questions
Content:
krodha wrote:
Garudha, you should seek a qualified teacher if you are interested in Dzogchen. Many experiences can come on spontaneously for people depending on their karmic circumstances. Investigating those experiences is all well and good but coming to a personal conclusion that what you experienced was rigpa, or any other species of insight, is pure conjecture. This is the type of thing that needs to be addressed by a teacher. Dzogchen cannot be learned from books, it requires a living transmission. If you have indeed already encountered such insight then it will become clear through following the intimate instructions of a qualified guru. Otherwise you run the risk of chasing fantasies, and I would hope you value your precious time enough to avoid wasting it. If you truly have a natural inclination for the teachings then find a teacher so you can focus that in a productive way.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 8th, 2014 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm said:
it is "self" because omniscience transcends both self and non-self

dzogchungpa said:
As far as I know, there are no scare quotes in Sanskrit or Tibetan.

krodha wrote:
Because for the Indians and Tibetans who originally authored these texts, the fact that these conventions were merely inferential was a given. We in the west tend to interpret them as being referential, therefore a little scare quote may be required now and again.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 3:25 PM
Title: Re: Svabhava / Brahman
Content:
rachmiel said:
Thanks, everyone, for your takes on the meaning of Buddha-nature.

The reason I brought up Buddha-nature with respect to svabhava is because of this (Wikipedia):

"... in the tathāgatagarbha sutras (notably the Nirvāṇa Sūtra), the Buddha states that the immortal and infinite Buddha-nature - or "true self" of the Buddha - is the indestructible svabhāva of beings."

krodha wrote:
It was pointed out on the 'The Self Is Real According to T.Page" thread, that the theories of 'true self' in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra are due to translating 'atman' too literally, and that the term 'atman' in the context of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra actually means 'essence' or 'nature'. It does not mean 'self' and therefore there is no 'true self' which is referenced (or even inferred) in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra at any time.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 3:10 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also this goes over the differences between tathāgatagarbha (of various interpretations) and the Brahman of Vedanta:

Madhyamika Buddhism vis-à-vis Hindu Vedanta (A Paradigm Shift) by Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche
http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/MadhyamikaBuddhismVisAVisHinduVedanta.aspx

Excerpt:
"If the Buddha nature (Tathagatagarbha/Sugatagarbha) was really existing (sat) and not empty (nishwabhava), in the Sutra sense, like the Brahman of the Hindus, then the same fault that ancient Buddhist masters blamed on the Hindu Atman-Brahman would boomerang on these Buddhists too. An unchanging really existing thing cannot function in any way as function implies change (Tatva Sanghraha, chapter 7, section E, text 332-335 of Shantarakshita commentary by Kamalashila). Therefore, how can such a Tathagatagarbha that is unchanging have any qualities as it cannot function in any way. If it is answered that the function of the Buddha’s qualities are inconceivable (acintya/sam gyi mikhyab), a further question arises that is, how can a conceivable Tathagatagarbha (as to say it exists is to bring it down to the level of conception and thus conceivable) have inconceivable qualities? For the Tathagarbha to have inconceivable qualities, it would also have to be inconceivable. We now come to the point of Nagarjuna that the Tathagarbha must also be free from the four extremes (tetralemma) which means empty of real existence. Therefore the whole Shentong/Rangtong issue is superfluous. And if the Tathagarbha becomes really existing then Buddhism loses its main thesis that differentiated it from Hinduism from its very inception.

We find even Hindu scholars as early as 300 AD like Vatsayana through Bharahar Sutra (Sutta) trying to prove that the Buddha actually taught the Atman but the Buddhists did not understand. This statement implies that there were no Buddhists who understood the Buddha. It further implies that until the time of Vatsayana, Buddhists did not agree with the Atman theory. However, in most kinds of Shentong (except the Dolpopa Shentong), Buddha nature is also empty and emptiness means unfindable that is free from the four extremes as per Nagarjuna-Chandrakirti.

In the tradition of the Mahasiddha Lord of Yogins (Yogeshwar) Virupad, who is one of the famous eighty four Mahasiddhas as well as a great scholar and an abbot (Upadhyaya/Khenpo) of Vikramashila; luminosity (prabhashwar), clarity or pure awareness is the store house consciousness (alaya vigyana) which is the relative truth and the Tathagarbha is emptiness and the ultimate truth. The unity of the two is the unity of Samsara and Nirvana which is inexpressible and experienced only by Aryas (Aryasamahita), those who have attained the Bhumis. In short, the unfindability of any true existence is the ultimate truth (paramartha satya) in Buddhism, and is diametrically opposed to the concept of a truly existing thing called Brahman, the ultimate truth in Hinduism.

There is also another problem with a really existing Tathagatagarbha that is not empty. If it is “really existing” then it cannot be indivisible with Samsara which is empty. Then the mind (Chitta) cannot be a Buddha and even worse is that the whole of Buddhist Tantra/Vajrayana would be subverted, as Samsara which is empty cannot be transformed into Nirvana, which according to the Shentong theory is not empty. The whole of Buddhist Tantra is based on the principle of transformation and that is why it is called the way of transformation (parinati marga). Vajrayana would become redundant and Sankara Vedanta would be the true Buddhist Way."
- Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche

And,

"Hence,to say that the Tathagarbha exists is to make it conceivable, expressible and within the domain of concepts. As the inimitable Sakya Pandita says, that would be like bringing the Tathagarbha down to conceptual proliferation (prapancha). Or, in the context of this essay, it is to make the Tathagarbha just another synonym for the Hindu Atman-Brahman which it is not. In the Mulamadhyamaka Karika, Nagarjuna very clearly mentions ‘tathagato nisvabhavo….’ that is ‘the Tathagata is empty (nisvabhava) of real existence’ (Mulamadhyamaka Karika, Tathagata Parikshya, chapter 22, verse 16). If the Tathagata is empty (nisvabhava), how can the Tathagatagarbha be really existing like the Brahman of the Hindu?"
- Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 3:08 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
rob h said:
Another thing with the idea of a self : isn't it basically the same as some forms of Hinduism in that case, but instead of saying Brahman, the word Tathagata/Tathagatagarbha is used? I'm looking up Advaita Vedanta and can see hardly any difference when it comes to the idea of release to be honest. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's kind of bizarre how similar it is. (is this the case of a sub-school of Hinduism being heavily inspired by Buddhism? It looks like it.)

Example from the Advaita wiki page :
"Brahman" too has a broader meaning than "pure consciousness". According to Paul Deussen, Brahman is:

Satyam, "the true reality, which, however, is not the empirical one"
Jñãnam, "Knowledge which, however, is not split into the subject and the object"
anantam, "boundless or infinite"
That's from the section "Identity of Atman and Brahman" here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_vedanta#Philosophy

You could say the same about the Tathagatagarbha, right? My main concern with this philosophy is that people form concepts and attach to them, but I guess that with the right teachers/guidance/awareness that shouldn't be a problem. I'm starting to think moksha is fairly similar to nirvana, but at the same time release from death and rebirth is said to have been a late development in the concept, so surely inspired by Buddhism.

Adviata also has virtually the exact same three natures/svabhavas as Yogacara, which was also a surprise to see.

krodha wrote:
From earlier in this thread:

Malcolm said:
There are various ways to interpret the Uttaratantra and tathāgatagarbha doctrine, one way is definitive in meaning, the other is provisional, according to Gorampa Sonam Senge, thus the tathāgatagarbha sutras become definitive or provisional depending on how they are understood. He states:

In the context of showing the faults of a literal [interpretation] – it's equivalence with the Non-Buddhist Self is that the assertion of unique eternal all pervading cognizing awareness of the Saṃkhya, the unique eternal pristine clarity of the Pashupattis, the unique all pervading intellect of the Vaiśnavas, the impermanent condition, the measure of one’s body, in the permanent self-nature of the Jains, and the white, brilliant, shining pellet the size of an atom, existing in each individual’s heart of the Vedantins are the same.

The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:

Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.

Khyentse Wangpo, often cited as a gzhan stong pa, basically says that the treatises of Maitreya elucidate the luminosity of the mind, i.e. its purity, whereas Nāgarjuna's treatises illustrate the empty nature of the mind, and that these two together, luminosity and emptiness free from extremes are to be understood as noncontradictory, which we can understand from the famous Prajñāpāramita citation "There is no mind in the mind, the nature of the mind is luminosity".


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Svabhava / Brahman
Content:
rachmiel said:
Buddhism rejects the reality of svabhava. All is emptiness = NOT svabhava. (Except for Buddha nature? I'm unclear on that.)

krodha wrote:
Your buddha nature is your latent potentiality for awakening, and it is precisely because we lack svabhāva that awakening is possible. We as sentient beings are ignorant of our nature, and because we fail to recognize it, we are confused. Our current predicament (as beings wandering in cyclic existence), is much like mistaking a rope lying in a dark room to be a snake, if you are thoroughly convinced it is a snake and someone else states it is actually a rope, you may very well not believe them. The so-called snake actually has 'rope nature', but until you recognize that for yourself, you remain confused. In the same way, all sentient beings have 'buddha nature', because your innate nature is that of a buddha, however the fact that our innate nature is that of a buddha doesn't matter at all unless it's discovered.

If a child is a brilliant guitarist, but lives in an area of the world where there are no guitars, the fact that his talent is latent within him makes no difference. Until he encounters a guitar, picks it up and learns to play, unleashing that potential... the fact that he indeed has potential to be a great guitarist is nothing more than a latent possibility.

Likewise, all beings are endowed with buddha nature, but for the child who lives in circumstances where there is no access to teachings, the fact that his buddhahood is latent within him makes no difference. Until he encounters the dharma, learns how to apply it in his own experience and unleashes that potential... the fact that he indeed has potential to be a fully awakened buddha is nothing more than a latent possibility.

One's buddha nature is a potentiality which is latent within them, it must be either recognized or cultivated. Milk has butter nature, the butter is latent within the milk as a possibility, however unless the milk is churned, no butter will result.

"Listen to me. If you are asked what the difference is between the mind of the truly perfected Buddha and the mind of sentient beings of the three realms, it is nothing other than the difference between realizing and not realizing the nature of mind. Since sentient beings fail to realize this nature, delusion occurs and from this ignorance the myriad types of sufferings come to pass. Thus beings roam through samsara. The basic material of buddhahood is in them, but they fail to recognize it."
- Padmasambhava


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The premise I'm referring to is the very literal interpretation and translation of the term atman as 'self'. It was shown earlier in this thread, twice, that in this context the term atman [bdag nyid] means 'essence' or 'nature'.

There's a large difference between a self and an essence, especially when that essence is non-arising.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, take it up with Bronkhorst. Do the sutras he is discussing say that the Tathagatagarbha is non-arising? As he says It is indeed the "highest reality," which has no fundamental connection with the doctrine of universal emptiness.

krodha wrote:
They say the tathāgatagarbha is ones latent potential for awakening, which is no different than saying the dharmatā of dharmins is always already the case, yet unrecognized.

His statement that the tathāgatagarbha has no fundamental connection to the doctrine of universal emptiness may simply mean that the doctrines themselves are unrelated. If he is implying however that the tathāgatagarbha itself has no connection to universal emptiness, then he has deviated from the meaning of the buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm not sure what premise you are referring to. Bronkhorst seems to think that 'self' is a good translation of 'atman' in this context. I don't see much difference between saying that the tathagatagarbha/dharmakaya is an essence in beings and saying it's a self in beings. Words like 'self' and 'essence' are kind of vague anyway.

krodha wrote:
The premise I'm referring to is the very literal interpretation and translation of the term atman as 'self'. It was shown earlier in this thread, twice, that in this context the term atman [bdag nyid] means 'essence' or 'nature'.

There's a large difference between a self and an essence, especially when that essence is non-arising.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Various texts use epithets for the tathagatagarbha and the dharmakaya like "eternal" (nitya), "unchanging" (dhruva), "joyful" (sukha), "self" (atman), and "pure" (subha, suci). We see in these the concept of the self that had been rejected by the Buddha. It appears that this idea held such a powerful sway that certain Buddhists could not resist it. We have already seen one reason for this attraction: it was unclear to many Buddhists why and how the Buddhist path could lead to liberation from rebirths. This explanation does not rule out the possibility that the notion of the tathagatagarbha as an eternal and joyful self may have originated within Buddhism, without non-Buddhist influence; or even that later non-Buddhists may have borrowed this notion from the Buddhists, as some scholars hold.

krodha wrote:
Yet this premise is shown to be false given that 'atman' does not mean 'self' in this context, but rather 'essence' or 'nature'.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 2:26 PM
Title: Re: Svabhava / Brahman
Content:
rachmiel said:
By essentially the same I mean aren't both svabhava and Brahman absent of conditions, causes, and attributes?

krodha wrote:
Yes Brahman would be a prime example of what Buddhism calls a svabhāva. Which means according to the buddhadharma, Brahman is little more than a facet of deluded mundane existence i.e. a misconception gone awry.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 12:26 PM
Title: Re: Svabhava / Brahman
Content:
krodha wrote:
Though you will sometimes see svabhāva used in reference to the idea of an essential nature which exists independently of causes and conditions. When it's used that way, Buddhism states that a svabhāva is impossible... as there is nothing which exists independently of cause and condition.

According to Buddhism, for something to truly exist it must exist outright and independently, unconditioned. However alleged 'existents' can only be found to originate dependently, so that core 'essence' or 'beingness' (that svabhāva represents), cannot be found when sought. One instead finds a collection of dependent factors - as designated by mind - which create the appearance of something, yet there's no 'thing' within or apart from the collection of dependent factors.

If things truly had svabhāva, when those varying dependent characteristics were removed, the thing would still remain, because it would have a core essence or being which made it what it is. However this is not the case. A basketball is round, orange and striped, if you remove those characteristics from the basketball there would be no basketball. Which means that there is no svabhāva. The basketball is not a thing which possesses those characteristics, the basketball is only the characteristics. This means the basketball is a mere appearance, there is nothing truly within, behind or apart from the constituent appearances, and even those appearances are merely valid in relation to other appearances.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 11:47 AM
Title: Re: Svabhava / Brahman
Content:
krodha wrote:
Svabhāva in the buddhadharma is emptiness [śūnyasvabhāva]. Buddhism, unlike Vedanta, does not posit a truly existent essence.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Proof of 6 Realms
Content:
krodha wrote:
Daniel Ingram has quite the list of recollected memories from past lives, and they are undoubtably interesting:

"As to world-cycles or the like, my past life experiences line up along the following lines, if you believe in such experiences having validity:

1) This life human.
2) Last life some sort of moderately powerful, clearly somewhat debauched male jealous god/sorcerer of some kind that was stabbed in the back with a dagger by a woman who he had wronged in some way, I think.
3) Some sort of mother skunk-like animal that was eaten by a large black dog or wolf.
4) Some sort of mother bat that was killed when the rock it was clinging to at the top of the cave fell to the floor.
5) Some sort of grim, gigantic, armored skeletal titan-like thing that ran tirelessly through space swinging a gigantic sword and doing battle nearly continuously without sleep for hundreds of thousands of years that was killed by something like a dragon.
6) Some gigantic, gelatinous, multi-tentacled, very alien being living in a very dark place for a very long time, probably under water, I think.

Other than some sense that the skunk-thing and the bat-thing were virtuous mothers, I have no sense that there was any profound previous dharmic development at least back that far, and, in fact, have the distinct sense that the previous one was a bit of a cad and not very ethical. Take that all for what you will.

Daniel"


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: is there a teacher in the house? or at least some advice
Content:
krodha wrote:
Rubix, I hope you realize people aren't saying these things to be mean. You seemed to think the comments on the other thread were condescending, they were not meant to be. People are only saying these things because they want you to be successful and create a beneficial connection with the teaching.

What you're perceiving as criticism is others wanting to help you. Trust me, none of us here know you, and you don't know us, many of us don't even really know each other, but everyone here only wants the best for you. If you enter this with a preconceived idea of what your situation or circumstances are then you're going to be looking to validate that, and/or protect it.

At any rate, I hope you can at least drop your guard a little and try to be open to what people are saying. You asked for advice, but it seems your inquiry was slightly loaded, because when you received advice (and good advice from numerous people) it appears it didn't coincide with your expectations, which would lead one to suspect you may have been simply looking to validate some preconceived notions. One who is openly seeking advice would not have adverse reactions to the advice given, nor would they persist in attempting to find more 'advice' (at the expense of the advice already given). That isn't seeking advice, that is seeking validation, or confirmation, of a hopeful conclusion which has already been arrived at.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: is there a teacher in the house? or at least some advice
Content:
rubix said:
Was only asking about books doesn't matter anymore I found out what I needed to know I'm in the 5th stage I found it in one of my BOOKS

krodha wrote:
"Today some people are saying: 'The Dzogchen teaching doesn't need a teacher or transmission, you can learn it in a book and you can apply it'. This is really a very wrong view. 
Nowadays in Western countries this kind of tradition or school is being developed but you shouldn't follow it. If you want to really follow Dzogchen teaching, that is the wrong direction. Garab Dorje received the transmission from Sambhogakāya Vajrasattva who is connected with Dharmakāya Samantabhadra, and from Garab Dorje until today we have the transmission without interruption.
If there is no transmission you cannot enter into real knowledge, it is impossible. That is why here... it is saying that you can really have that knowledge only if you are connected with the three transmissions. The three transmissions are just like a current.
For example if you have a lamp and you want to light it up you must connect it with a current, otherwise there will be no light... To believe you can get this knowledge just by reading books is a fantasy."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 3:23 PM
Title: Re: Proof of 6 Realms
Content:
krodha wrote:
There is also an aspect of the six realms that correlates to states of mind. The Asuras would be anger, wrath, jealousy etc. The pretas or hungry ghosts would be greed, unfulfillment. The animal realm would be laziness, stupidity, torpor. The human realm would be equanimity, evenness. The hell beings would be depression, torment. The deva or god realm would be elation, happiness, bliss.

Your experience consists of cycling through these realms or states of mind. But they are all samsara, all impermanent, none last, none can satiate or free you from suffering, craving and grasping.

If you look at images of the Tibetan wheel of life, the bhāvacakra, these realms are all relative, and buddhahood is not found in the wheel, because buddhahood is not any of these states, nor is it accessible through them. These states or realms comprise mind, and buddhahood is not found within mind, however it is not separate from mind either.

Discover the nature of mind, and you will know buddhahood.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 1:39 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
^ this isn't an assertion of actions being inherent in objects because since vision cannot be established (inherently), objects of vision cannot be (inherently) established either. If they (vision and objects) arise they do so dependently, and dependent origination is not origination. The same goes for the rest of the senses.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 12:30 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
An assertion that there's action inherent in objects was never made. He was saying that if something is seen intrinsically, then it doesn't need to be seen, ergo vision is superfluous. And if something is intrinsically unseen, then the question as to whether vision is involved or not is already answered, because an unseen thing is not seen by definition, ergo vision is a non-starter in that case.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 12:04 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
And what flaw might that be?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Well, I totally do not understand anything that you posted up until this point (above). That part about the jasmine flower just went right over my head. Can you explain it better?

krodha wrote:
When Greg unpacked the flower part further he wrote:

"Vision doesn't see itself. It is not reflexive. Vision is not pervaded by the property of being seen. So if it can't even pervade itself with a property it is supposed to have inherently, then how can it ever spread out and pervade other things? So therefore, the analogy with the flower fails. Vision is more like a knife that can't cut itself than it is like a flower that pervades itself with its own scent.

If it is the intrinsic nature of something to be seen, then vision doesn't see it (as it's not necessary), and non-vision doesn't see it (as it's not possible).. 

If it is the intrinsic nature of something not to be seen, then vision doesn't see it (or then it would be seen and not unseen), and non-vision doesn't see it (because non-vision cannot see).

A visual object is either seen by vision or not seen by vision. If vision doesn't see it (because vision is superfluous), then it is not a visual object. If it is not seen by vision because its own nature is to be unseen, then it is also not a visual object.

Therefore there are no visual objects.

The key to getting this logic is that the assumption of inherent properties make any relationships either impossible or superfluous."


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 9:58 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
^ well yes if you attempt to approach these pointers through the lens of physicalist science, it definitely is not going to make sense.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: Yeti-Bigfoot
Content:
krodha wrote:
It's surprising there aren't more Yeti [gya' dred / mi dred] thangkas. The only one I've seen is displayed at Disney World in the Expedition Everest artifacts they have on display, which could very well be fake but its craftsmanship looks authentic enough.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
han said:
Can you see your own eyes?" Nobody can see their own eyes. I can see your eyes but I can't see my eyes.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Wow, it's funny (to me) to read this today, because I was just discussing this fact with someone.
An eye cannot look into itself directly.
but it can look directly at a reflection of itself
and that reflection, and the awareness of that reflection validates that the eye is there.
Likewise, while awareness cannot see itself directly,
the fact that objects of awareness are experienced
validates that awareness operates.
.
.
.

krodha wrote:
Not according to Nāgārjuna. I mean, we can conventionally say that 'awareness operates' but ultimately 'awareness' and objects of awareness are unfindable.

Greg Goode wrote about this not too long ago:
"Nagarjuna argues that the faculty of vision cannot ultimately exist. And then neither can a seer or visual objects.

Then generalizes to other senses.

Even the first two verses deserve lots of contemplation:

3.1. "Vision, hearing, taste, smell, touch, and the inner sense (manas or the mind)
are the six faculties; the visible and so on are their fields."

(This is the doctrine, and it is held that they exist inherently. This latter claim is what Nagarjuna will refute.)

3.2. "In no way does vision see itself.
If vision does not see itself, how will it see what is other?"

Verse 3.2 seems odd, because we would normally think that vision is not SUPPOSED to see itself. It is only SUPPOSED to see something other than itself, right?

Verse 3.2.a is a version of the non-reflexivity principle. The eye cannot see itself, the knife cannot cut itself.

Verse 3.2.b seems like a non-sequitur. Here is what the Indian commentaries said about it.

There are at least several ways to look at this:

-1-

Think of being seen as a property or attribute, something that pervades a substance. It is like the scent of jasmine pervades the jasmine flower before pervading the air around it. If the flower is not pervaded by its own scent, then neither can the air be pervaded by it.

So in this way, is vision itself pervaded by the property or essence of being seen? Clearly not. So, like the example of the flower, the property of being seen cannot pervade anything else.

So nothing is pervaded by the property of being seen, and the visible is not established. Vision is also not established.

-2-

If seeing is the inherent, intrinsic property of vision, then it must see all by itself, regardless of whether there is an object present. If vision depended on an object in order for seeing to work, then vision would not be ultimately, inherently existent. Seeing would not be an inherent property of vision.

But vision does not see by itself. So it isn't an inherently existent element, and can't inherently see anything.

-3-

Another way to look at vision is by the objects it sees.

Vision either sees the presently visible, or the presently invisible, or both, or neither.

Vision doesn't see objects that are presently visible, because they are already being seen. Because they are already being seen, they do not need vision to see them. So this vision is not what is seeing them.

Vision doesn't see objects that are presently invisible. Invisible objects have the property of not being seen, so nothing can see them.

Vision doesn't see objects that are both visible and invisible because of a combination of the first two reasons above.

Vision doesn't see objects that are NEITHER visible nor invisible because we can REVERSE the first two reasons above.

Therefore vision doesn't see. If it doesn't see, then seeingness is not its intrinsic nature. Then it makes no sense to think that vision exists in the ultimate way that it appears to.

If vision doesn't exist, then how can visible objects exist?"


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 2:54 PM
Title: Re: Yeti-Bigfoot
Content:
krodha wrote:
Apparently there's a yeti scalp which is kept in a monastery in Khumjung.

And here's a video of Traktung Yeshe Dorje telling a story about one of Do Khyentse's students encounter with a yeti:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 1:56 PM
Title: Re: Yeti-Bigfoot
Content:
krodha wrote:
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche said that he had a pet yeti, or a yeti that lived nearby he used to feed when he was a young boy.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
I'm not alone in this thought. In her book on Kagyu Shentong Hookam's got the line somewhere, "So what if it sounds like another religion? If you are after the Truth what difference does it make?" (That may not be an exact quote, but close.)

dzogchungpa said:
From "The Buddha Within": This concept of Absolute Reality being a knowing, feeling, dynamic force that is the very essence of our being and our universe is vehemently rejected by many sections of the traditional Buddhist community. The reason no doubt is that it is too suggestive of a theistic principle; Buddhism has traditionally held itself aloof from theistic formulations of religious doctrine. Nevertheless, as Khenpo Tsultrim aptly points out, if Buddhism is fundamentally about discovering truth, the mere fact that a certain doctrine sounds like someone else's is no rationale for rejecting it out of hand. However, a major preoccupation of Buddhist scholars over the centuries has been to maintain a clear distinction between themselves and theistic religions. Interestingly, this tendency continues as Buddhism spreads to the West.

krodha wrote:
I'd say it's more so that according to Buddhism, those other doctrines are merely reifying, edifying and fortifying a self that cannot be found in the first place.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
...but it sounds mighty like neo advaita.
Ok, so what if it is? What negative consequences are there? Will it suddenly make one's practice impotent or invalid? Presumably Dolpopa's practice was quite fruitful, and his paradigm was the most extreme. Was his realization somehow askew? I'd trade my practice for his anyway.

I'm not alone in this thought. In her book on Kagyu Shentong Hookam's got the line somewhere, "So what if it sounds like another religion? If you are after the Truth what difference does it make?" (That may not be an exact quote, but close.)

The point being that all Mahayana schools claim to be able to actually meditate in uncontrived emptiness. Presumably all Mahayana schools have produced enlightened practitioners over time. That is what validates the school. These discussions come from how they choose to articulate what that is like in order to discuss it and for those that have not had the experience.

krodha wrote:
One of the issues with so-called 'neo-advaita' is that it lacks both the dichotomies of (i) 'conventional and ultimate' and/or (ii) 'delusion and wisdom', and without those aspects of the teaching, persons, places, things etc. (what the dharma refers to as conventional designations), are taken to be truly non-existent (often because they are 'concepts'), and that subtle objectification results in the mind grasping at those notions, and you end up with a bunch of people who truly believe there is no self, etc. So it's a bunch of selves who believe they don't exist.

Traditional Advaita Vedanta is much more refined, but it still posits the existence of an unconditioned and uncaused, universal self. Though its praxis is backed by a long standing tradition, and so it doesn't have as many inconsistencies and issues when compared to the new wave 'neo-advaita'.

I don't think Dolbulpa's gzhan stong is quite the same as Vedanta.

The big differences between the Advaita view and that of the buddhadharma is that the Advaita non-duality is 'advaita', which is accomplished by subsuming relative existents into a truly established and inherently existent ultimate nature. That ultimate nature exists in relation to relative phenomena, is the source of that relative phenomena, but is not that phenomena and is beyond the relative.

The non-duality of the buddhadharma is 'advaya', which is discovered through a freedom from the extremes of existence and non-existence (and both and neither). The ultimate nature is the non-arising of the relative, and so there truly is no inherent ultimate nature. The ultimate nature in this case is inseparable from the relative, for example; when Nāgārjuna states: 'samsara and nirvana, neither of these truly exist, instead, nirvana is a complete and through knowledge of samsara'.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
thigle said:
If one practice "giving up practice", it's "practise", because he constructs a reified concept and therefore "thing" called  "giving up practice", because there's a form of expectation, which want to have something from "giving up practice". That's grasping. One makes a "thing" out of the fact of giving up practice. Complementary to grasping, now it seems there's something like a "giving up practice'nes". It's anything "behind", like a "big brother, which is reified-identified with "giving up practice". It's really great, if one can detect this, because now it's really possible to interrupt this artificial focus. You can't, because you are afraid, you "can't see something" what you expect from doing "giving up practice"? Great, you detect it once again.

At some point one has enough. Neither "practice" nor "non-practice", so what will be left? Naturally loosed, therefore neither distracted yet focused. Not as "practice" or reified "non-practise", but as a self-obvious non-constructed fact, not "made" by anything or anyone. Now, transparency/knowledge is self-obvious.

"Self-obvious" doesn't mean "automatic". It's just without any need for an extra artificial knowledge-focus like this: "transparency is self-obvious". You can't tell "from where" immediate knowledge comes from, because it doesn't matter from itself from where it comes from. The fact that "it doesn't matter" is immediate "knowledge", not to distinct from what appears, therefore everything is obviously "transparent"-like or "insubstantial"-like, primordially without any need for a base.

Marginal note: One cannot overemphasize the importance of this. "Naturally loosed, neither distracted yet focused", is not about doing or practicing "to be naturaly loosed". It's not about "to remain" naturaly loosed. But some people do that in perfection. Therefore they believe, they are "naturaly loosed" and that's the big goal. Such a "reified non-practice" tends to a special "state" of consciousness. Now the disciple maybe think: "It's really the big goal, because of my true "natural relaxation", there's some-"thing" like "clarity" or "openness" or whatever. But his "clarity" or "openness" or whatever are only reified concepts, based on grasping/ignorance. This is really different from the terms "naturally relaxed" or "naturally loosed" in our context. What sounds the same, may also be different.


Sry for my bad english

krodha wrote:
The 'natural' part of the practice arises as a result of recognizing the nature of mind. If that recognition hasn't occurred, no matter how relaxed or loose we remain, the mind is still acting as a reference point and is mediating experience, which means that delusion is still present, and there is nothing natural about ones practice. Resting in mind is a necessary preliminary practice for most, but it shouldn't be confused as the definitive view.

There's (i) non-fixation which is resting in the clarity of mind (as a reference point), and then there's (ii) non-fixation resting in the nature of mind (free of a reference point). Confusing the former for the latter causes a lot of issues.

Per Dudjom Lingpa; the clarity of mind can be referred to as the 'relative' nature of mind, but this (clarity) is not the ultimate nature of mind. The 'ultimate' nature of mind, meaning the minds definitive nature, is sems nyid i.e. the recognition of the non-arising of the mind (sometimes parsed as 'nondual clarity and emptiness'). That recognition frees up the illusory reference point of mind and so mind no longer mediates experience and appearances self-arise [rang byung] and self-liberate [rang grol].

The clarity (cognizance) of mind alone implies a subtle reference point and a subtle grasping, because clarity is susceptible to conditioning. But when clarity is sealed with emptiness, that reference point is freed up and the grasping is cut. This is why, for example; tregchö [khregs chod] is sometimes defined as cutting the binding on bundle of wood. The binding represents the delusion which keeps clarity conditioned and sustains the artificial reference point of mind. Clarity alone (divorced of the recognition of its emptiness) is merely the neutral indeterminate cognizance of the ālaya. All sentient beings function from the standpoint of the ālaya and mind.

An allegedly natural resting in the clarity of mind is simply śamatha, when that clarity is recognized as empty, the knowledge that the mind has been beginninglessly non-arisen gives rise to the 'natural' resting you are alluding to, which is the vipaśyanā of the natural state. The former entails effort, even if one thinks they are resting effortlessly. The latter is the true effortlessness.

Tulku Urgyen discusses how resting in mind is not equivalent to the definitive view:
"The glimpse of recognizing mind-essence [sems nyid] that in the beginning lasted only for a few seconds gradually becomes half a minute, then a minute, then half an hour, then hours, until eventually it is uninterrupted throughout the whole day. You need that kind of training. I mention this because, if the goal of the main training is to construct a state in which thoughts have subsided and which feels very clear and quiet, that is still a training in which a particular state is deliberately kept. Such a state is the outcome of a mental effort, a pursuit. Therefore it is neither the ultimate nor the original natural state. 

The naked essence of mind [sems nyid] is not known in shamatha, because the mind is occupied with abiding in stillness; it (mind essence) remains unseen. All one is doing is simply not following the movement of thought. But being deluded by thought movement is not the only delusion; one can also be deluded by abiding in quietude. The preoccupation with being clam blocks recognition of self-existing wakefulness and also blocks the knowing of the three kayas of the awakened state. This calm is simply one of no thought, of the attention subsiding in itself while still not knowing itself."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
krodha wrote:
Actually this passage from Dudjom Rinpoche is even better:
"Similarly: first, the rigpa [vidyā] of having had the introduction is like the first part of the early dawn; in the middle, the rigpa of having gained assurance, free from equipoise and post-attainment is like the daybreak; and finally the rigpa of having gained liberation from extremes is like the sun shining."

And Mipham Rinpoche states:
"The training of rigpa comes in three steps: recognition, training and finalization."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
...And rituals, or whatever other method one wants to use to familiarize with that nature is an indispensable aspect of the teaching.

Sönam said:
It does not sound very dzogchen at all ... maybe TB conceptualizations?

Sönam

krodha wrote:
I posted some of this elsewhere but it is relevant here and explains my point:

The guru gives you pointing out instructions, you recognize primordial wisdom, you rest in that knowledge [vidyā], unerringly, and that is the path. When that knowledge ripens to it's full measure your vidyā is dharmakāya, and you are a buddha. The basis, path and result are never apart from vidyā, because they are simply the refinement of vidyā via the exhaustion of traces. Our illusory and deluded experiences as sentient beings, are merely the complex interaction of these karmic traces, habitual tendencies and afflictive propensities.

Buddhahood is only attained when these propensities are exhausted, as Longchenpa elucidates:
"Ordinary beings are truly buddhas, but this fact is obscured by adventitious distortions, once these are removed, truly there is buddhahood."

There is no method to apply other than resting in vidyā. The path is familiarization, stabilization and integration in that view [tib. ta wa]. It is crucial that the view is maintained tenaciously and one cultivates non-distraction. If this isn't performed skillfully, then there is undoubtably a danger of regression into deluded mind. In time the view will become more and more effortless, however initially it is important to rely on practice and so on.

This principle is identical to the three testaments of Garab Dorje: (i) Introduction to one's nature [basis], (ii) Confidence in one's nature [path], (iii) Continuation in one's nature [result].

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:
"A seeming confusion obscures the recognition of the basis [gzhi]. Fortunately, this seeming delusion is temporary. This failure to recognize the basis is similar to dreaming. Dreaming is not primordial; it is temporary, it can be purified. Purification happens through training on the path. We have strayed from the basis and become sentient beings. To free the basis from what obscures it, we have to train. Right now, we are on the path and have not yet attained the result. When we are freed from obscuration, then the result - dharmakāya - appears. The liberated basis, path and result are all perfected in the realm of the single essence, the continuity of rig pa [vidyā].

In fact, there is no difference whatsoever between the basis and result. In the state of the basis the enlightened qualities are not acknowledged, but they are manifest at the time of the result. These are not new qualities that suddenly appear, but are like the qualities of a flower that are inherent in the seed. Within the seed are the characteristics of the flower itself. The seed holds the potential for the flower's color, smell, bud and leaves. However, can we say that the seed is the result of the flower? No, we cannot, because the flower has not fully bloomed. Like this analogy, the qualities of the result are contained in the state of the basis; yet, they are not evident or manifest. That is the difference between the basis and the result. At the time of the path, if we do not apply effort, the result will not appear."

So even after recognition the view must be maintained, this is what practice is for, otherwise karmic propensities will cause distraction and deviation to arise in one's condition, as Dudjom Rinpoche explains:

"The mere recognition of vidyā will not liberate you. Throughout your lives from beginningless time, you have been enveloped in false beliefs and deluded habits. From then till now you have spent every moment as a miserable, pathetic slave of your thoughts! And when you die, it’s not at all certain where you will go. You will follow your karma, and you will have to suffer. This is the reason why you must meditate, continuously preserving the sate of vidyā you have been introduced to. The omniscient Longchenpa has said, 'You may recognize your own nature, but if you do not meditate and get used to it, you will be like a baby left on a battlefield: you’ll be carried off by the enemy, the hostile army of your own thoughts!' In general terms, meditation means becoming famiIiar with the state of resting in the primordial uncontrived nature, through being spontaneously, naturally, constantly mindful. It means getting used to leaving the state of vidyā alone, divested of all distraction and clinging."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:


thigle said:
That's a good question, because the most of us conceptualize and reify the entire life unknowingly, therefore the most of us are always unknowingly "practitioners" from the complementary standpoint of a "big brother", which seems to be refied-identified with everything. That's ignorance and grasping, therefore it's really better to give up such artificial practice, especially if someone "want to become familiar" with primordially-natural knowledge/transparency.


Sry for my bad english

krodha wrote:
'Giving up' is ignorance and grasping as well. Only a direct knowledge of dharmatā constitutes a transcendence of artificial practice... and even then, ones knowledge is initially unripened, and will not reach its full measure until the realization of emptiness. Therefore familiarization and practice are required.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
...
And rituals, or whatever other method one wants to use to familiarize with that nature is an indispensable aspect of the teaching.

Sönam said:
It does not sound very dzogchen at all ... maybe TB conceptualizations?

Sönam

krodha wrote:
TB?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Wayuu said:
I already did one direct introduction through webcast with Namkhai Norbu,

thigle said:
A "direct introduction" into what? The "natural state"? Really? If so, there's no need from itself for "rituals", because you're a "sotāpanna".

krodha wrote:
Yes direct introduction to your nature. And rituals, or whatever other method one wants to use to familiarize with that nature is an indispensable aspect of the teaching.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 2:14 PM
Title: Re: two truths -Nagarjuna
Content:
krodha wrote:
'The truth of wordly convention' or more simply; 'conventional truth' is our relative experiences which consist of persons, places, things, and so on.

The ultimate truth is the emptiness of the conventional.

So an example of conventional truth is a car. The ultimate truth is the emptiness of the car.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 2:43 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
In most cases, the ātman is the ālayavijñāna [all-basis consciousness] or the ālaya [all-basis] mistaken as a permanently abiding conscious substratum which exists independently of causes, conditions and other phenomena. That error is the foundation for the grasping which gives rise to the jīvātman, ātman and so on. The dharma reveals that capacity to be empty, which collapses the delusion that sustains the notion of a self which can either exist or not exist.

Thrangu Rinpoche discusses this:
"When Buddha Shakyamuni introduced the Buddhist teachings [skt. dharma] he taught extensively on the subject of the mind. In the context of the lesser vehicle [skt. hinayāna], when explaining the five aggregates, the twelve sense-sources, and the eighteen elements, the Buddha explained the mind in terms of six collections of consciousnesses; eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousness (i.e., the five sense consciousnesses), and the mind consciousness.
In the context of the great vehicle [skt. mahāyāna], however, Buddha Shakyamuni explained the mind in terms of the eight collections of consciousness: the seventh consciousness is the klesha-mind and the eighth the all-base consciousness [skt. ālayavijñāna]. The reason why these two types of consciousness were not taught in the lesser vehicle is explained in the sutras. There is says 'the absorbing consciousness is profound and subtle. If it were taken to be the self, that would not be appropriate.' The all-base consciousness functions uninterruptedly, like a flow of a river, by absorbing imprints and seeds. In many non-Buddhist philosophies - for example, that of the Indian Tirthikas - the true existence of a self is postulated. It could happen that the followers of such philosophies take the all-base consciousness to be the truly existent self; this is a mistake. In the great vehicle, however, there is no entity as such that could be viewed as the self: indeed, there is no valid cognition that could prove the true existence of such a self. Since sometimes the body is taken to be the self and sometimes also the mind, there is no definite focal point for the self. It obviously follows that the self cannot be construed as being the all-base consciousness either."


tobes said:
But are you not simply appealing to a Buddhist authority to tell us what the Atman is? It's never a good idea to get a Marxist to teach you about Liberalism.....


krodha wrote:
That wasn't really directed towards you or anyone, and I don't share your sentiments on this topic.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
You clearly dont know what the Atman is.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Yeah, actually, I think I do.
For example,
If atma it did not refer to an individual's essence, you wouldn't hgave the word 'mahatma' (maha + atma).
It comes from the vedic, and refers to what in Abrahamic religions is called a 'soul' ,
meaning that each person has their own.
But, just taking your argument as is,
answer what I asked before.
What distinguishes or separates your atman, or 'true self',
whatever you want to call it, from anyone else's?
Or, tell me:
How is your view of 'true self' different from the Vedic concept of a Brahman?
.
.
.

tobes said:
I think there's a good reason to propose that no one really 'knows' what Atman is, because it is usually alluded to as 'beyond (ordinary) knowledge, thought, definition, conceptualisation etc'. i.e. if it is anything, 'it' surely remains in the sphere of very very subtle meditative experience.....and how precisely does one use one's own philosophical vantage point to shoot down another's meditative experience?

Buddhists of course, know how to (and love to) argue against it. That's basically our job! But I admit that I see a bit of a pretense in that occupation....


krodha wrote:
In most cases, the ātman is the ālayavijñāna [all-basis consciousness] or the ālaya [all-basis] mistaken as a permanently abiding conscious substratum which exists independently of causes, conditions and other phenomena. That error is the foundation for the grasping which gives rise to the jīvātman, ātman and so on. The dharma reveals that capacity to be empty, which collapses the delusion that sustains the notion of a self which can either exist or not exist.

Thrangu Rinpoche discusses this:
"When Buddha Shakyamuni introduced the Buddhist teachings [skt. dharma] he taught extensively on the subject of the mind. In the context of the lesser vehicle [skt. hinayāna], when explaining the five aggregates, the twelve sense-sources, and the eighteen elements, the Buddha explained the mind in terms of six collections of consciousnesses; eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousness (i.e., the five sense consciousnesses), and the mind consciousness.
In the context of the great vehicle [skt. mahāyāna], however, Buddha Shakyamuni explained the mind in terms of the eight collections of consciousness: the seventh consciousness is the klesha-mind and the eighth the all-base consciousness [skt. ālayavijñāna]. The reason why these two types of consciousness were not taught in the lesser vehicle is explained in the sutras. There is says 'the absorbing consciousness is profound and subtle. If it were taken to be the self, that would not be appropriate.' The all-base consciousness functions uninterruptedly, like a flow of a river, by absorbing imprints and seeds. In many non-Buddhist philosophies - for example, that of the Indian Tirthikas - the true existence of a self is postulated. It could happen that the followers of such philosophies take the all-base consciousness to be the truly existent self; this is a mistake. In the great vehicle, however, there is no entity as such that could be viewed as the self: indeed, there is no valid cognition that could prove the true existence of such a self. Since sometimes the body is taken to be the self and sometimes also the mind, there is no definite focal point for the self. It obviously follows that the self cannot be construed as being the all-base consciousness either."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 10:54 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
...the Buddha doesn't follow through with the implications of a real No — if there's no self, how can there be rebirth?
Why is this so hard for people to understand?

krodha wrote:
Because it isn't a self that is reborn, but afflictive conditions.

xabir said:
Ven Dhammanando answered it well:

---------------------------
QUOTE(Darkknight @ Jan 8 2007, 06:17 AM)
Q. So there is no self (Atman). so what exactly is it that is reborn, and how does what is reborn pass from one body to another?
Thanks in advance for any answers received. bow.gif

-----------------------------

Ven Dhammanando wrote:
The question is wrongly put and the Buddha's reponse when asked such a question was to reject it as an improper question. Having rejected the question he would then inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition is there birth?"

The reason that it is an improper question is that rebirth is taught as the continuation of a process, and not as the passing on of any sort of entity. For a more complete exposition of the subject see Mahasi Sayadaw's Discourse on Paticcasamuppada.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu

Another reply by Dhammanando:

-----------------------------

QUOTE(Avalokiteshvara @ Jan 8 2007, 09:11 AM)
Wrongly put or not the answer is still the same.

-----------------------------

Ven Dhammanando wrote:
The "what?" in the question takes for granted the very thing that the Buddha rejects — that there is some real entity in this life that is transferred to the being in the next life. Since this assumption is wrong, the question as phrased has no answer and must be rejected.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu

(See: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/09/phagguna-sutta-to-phagguna.html )

In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena:

"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

"A psycho-physical combination [nama-rupa], O King."

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical
combination as this present one?"

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be born."

krodha wrote:
and...

xabir said:
Malcolm's reply to this same question (lengthier):

-----------------------------

QUOTE(Avalokiteshvara @ Jan 7 2007, 11:02 PM) I understand what you are saying but the "what" doesnt necessarily have to mean one thing like some real entity it could also mean many things. I dont think any assumptions were being made it is just a question anyway nothing right or wrong about it. * *

-----------------------------

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the question is phrased wrong requiring at best an ambigious answer that will confuse more than edify.

Buddha in fact discussed this with Sharputra saying that if he answers the question "yes there is something that undergoes birth" people will become confused and assume there is a permanent self that undergoes retribution of action and so on. Likewise, if he answers the question "no, there is nothing which undergoes rebirth" likewise there are those who will assume there are no consequences of action and so on and will therefore feel no compelling need observe the principles of karma and so on.

Therefore when asked the question "what takes rebirth" he points out that question itself is flawed.

The question should be "Why is there birth?" The answer to that question is easy. There is birth, i.e. suffering, because of affliction and action.

As long as the aggregates are afflicted, afflicted aggregates will continue to be appropriated.

In Madhyamaka it is explained there is birth because of the innate self-grasping "I am" appearing to the afflicted mind. It is asserted that what appropriates birth in a new series of aggregates is the mental habit "I am." That "I am" is baseless, has no correspondence in the aggregates or seperate from them or in any one of them, just as a car is not found in its parts, seperate from them, or in any one of the parts. Nevertheless, the imputation "car" allows us to use cars effectively. Likewise, the mental habit "I am" is proper as both the agent of action and the object upon which it ripens even though it is basically unreal and has no basis in the aggregates, outside the aggregates, or in any one of them, but allows us to treat the aggreates as a nominally designated "person".


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 10:48 AM
Title: Re: Is this a painting of Milarepa?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Milarepa. There are other paintings of him where he is depicted with green skin as well.

This is the explanation I found:
"At the age of 45, he started to practice at Drakar Taso (White Rock Horse Tooth) cave – "Milarepa's Cave", as well as becoming a wandering teacher. Here, he subsisted on nettle tea, leading his skin to turn green with a waxy covering, hence the greenish color he is often depicted as having, in paintings and sculpture."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 8:45 AM
Title: Re: Dream Yoga
Content:
dimeo said:
Hopefully someone can tell me if I'm off the mark here, but perhaps there's an idea that if we learn to see dreams as somewhat like life and life like a dream, then a whole new realm of potential possibility opens up to us.   When in the teachings and sutras, there's teachings about 'emptiness' (shunyata) instead of it meaning the idea of 'nothing', another translation is 'potential' and 'openness'.

Quite typically a person will have a rather fixed idea in the mind toward perception of what is "true" and "real".    With dream yoga perhaps this begins to change in daily life as well and we can learn to better see the open potential all around us?

krodha wrote:
Śūnyatā is never meant to be 'nothing', the sūtras are quite clear about that. And yes emptiness implies potentiality and dynamism, if things truly existed (because they would exist independently of causes or conditions) then there would be no way for anything have dynamic potentiality.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
Yes, well you and I discussed that recently, and Malcolm clarified that the so-called 'subtle inner Madhyamaka' referenced by Dudjom Rinpoche is simply taking appearances to be mind.
Dudjom R. is not speaking about a "Mind Only" interpretation:


Whereas in the aforementioned tradition of Mind Only, the dependent nature is the ground of emptiness and is explained to be the absolute, empty of imaginary objects of refutation, here it is the absolute reality (chos-nyid yongs-grub) that is claimed to be empty of imaginary objects of refutation. Accordingly, the components, psychophysical bases and activity fields, which are dependently conceived, are said to be a ground which is empty of the imaginary self and its properties; and the ground which is empty of that dependent ground of emptiness is absolute reality. This ground of emptiness never comes into existence because it is empty of the phenomena of samsara, which are characterised as suddenly arisen and which are divided according to essential stains and substantial faults. However this ground is not empty of the amassed enlightened attributes of nirvana which spontaneously abide from the beginning.

Accordingly, it is said in the Supreme Continuum of the Greater Vehicle (Ch.l, v.155):
The seed which is empty of suddenly arisen phenomena
Endowed with divisive characteristics
Is not empty of the unsurpassed reality
Endowed with indivisible characteristics. (formatting mine)
Also noting that while Dudjom Rinpoche was no doubt a profound teacher, his view on this matter was by no means definitive or universally held.
Dudjom R.'s view is not binding on anybody, but he was the "Head of the Nyingma Lineage" as such.

krodha wrote:
Dudjom Rinpoche was definitely influenced by Kongtrul's gzhan stong.

At any rate, if you enjoy that view that is great, it isn't something that I find value in so much, but to each their own. We can agree to disagree.

I just don't see how this 'absolute reality' [chos nyid yongs grub] can be empty of conditioned phenomena i.e. 'imaginary objects of refutation' as Dudjom Rinpoche puts it, yet have truly established 'unconditioned' attributes or 'amassed enlightened attributes of nirvana which spontaneously abide from the beginning' as Dudjom Rinpoche coins it.

This doesn't add up to me, but that is ok. It is perfectly fine for ones nature to have enlightened qualities, though why those qualities would not be empty themselves is a curious notion.

The emptiness of something doesn't render it non-existent, null, void or unable to 'spontaneously abide from the beginning'. In fact, because things are empty is why they can be endowed with action, potency and can engage in interaction and so on. If things where inherently existent they would be fixed, dead, static, devoid of life, energy, movement and so on... inherently existent things (or attributes) are truly inconceivable, and I don't mean that in the way we may think the realized state to be 'inconceivable', I mean it in the sense that they are an impossibility.

Nāgārjuna's logic on this seems much more sound, to me at least:
"Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,
the conditioned is not established;
since the conditioned is never established,
how can the unconditioned be established?"


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
Regarding gzhan stongs title as the alleged 'Great Madhyamaka', Malcolm also shared:
Malcolm wrote:
It is sort of ridiculous to term gzhan stong "great madhyamaka" since it is a term used to describe several different positions amongst Tibetan Madhyamakas i.e. gzhan stong; the early Sakya/Nyingma view of free from extremes that goes right back to Kawa Paltseg, and of course Tsongkhapa's formulation.

The Indian texts also show no consistency in how the term is used, the anonymous pramāṇavidhvaṃsanaṭippiṭakavṛtti refers to its adherents as "great madhyamaka" and rejects the so called cittamatra madhyamaka [that Bhava advocates in the passage you reference] as inferior.

In reality, in the Indian context, "great madhyamaka is a term mostly used in tantric treatises; even here however it is used in various different ways. The Śrī-kālacakropadeśayogaṣaḍaṇgatantrapañjikā by Avadhutipāda states:
"The nature of the completion [stage] is said to be mahāmadhyamaka".
On other hand, the Śrī-ḍākārṇavamahāyoginītantrarājasyaṭīkāvohitaṭikā by Padmavajra states:
So called "madhyamaka" is the dharma of the essence, the freedom from four extremes of the mahāmadhyamaka of the Mahāyāna and the awakening of the fortunate.
Dombi Heruka's Śrīhevajrasādhana states:
One should mediate on the great madhyamaka free from all signs.
And the Tantric Candrakiriti's Samājābhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti states
Having manifested the mahāmadhyamaka that is like space, 
the sunlight of compassion benefits all sentient beings


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
I don't know about the Drikung Kagyupas, but my understanding is that the Nyingmapas hold the " Great Madhyamaka", a.k.a. "empty of other", a.k.a "shentong" to be the highest view. Or at least Dudjom R. was of that opinion. See D.R.'s "The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism" (a.k.a. "The Big Red Book).

On the other hand evidently ChNN does not subscribe to that idea. That is his prerogative, but then again he is known to march to the beat of a different drummer on a number of various issues.

krodha wrote:
Yes, well you and I discussed that recently, and Malcolm clarified that the so-called 'subtle inner Madhyamaka' referenced by Dudjom Rinpoche is simply taking appearances to be mind. Also noting that while Dudjom Rinpoche was no doubt a profound teacher, his view on this matter was by no means definitive or universally held.

smcj said:
asunthatneversets wrote:
Dudjom Rinpoche stated that it's acceptable to hold a gzhan stong view in certain circumstances regarding practice. I believe he then also stated that in post-meditation and in instances where discussion/debate was occurring, the rang stong view is appropriate.

smcj wrote:
I believe what D.R. said was that Prasangika view is best if the subject of emptiness is approached intellectually, and Great Madhyamaka view is best if the subject of emptiness is approached from an experiential/meditational perspective. He calls the Prasangika the "coarse outer Madhyamaka" as opposed to the "subtle inner Madhyamaka". He subscribes to the 3rd turning as definitive. I've got the quote(s) somewhere in the Big Red Book. I will look them up if you so desire.

Malcolm wrote:
I have already shown that this distinction made by many gzhan stong scholars is based on a misconception, and I even trotted out the passage in question.

viewtopic.php?f=102&t=13306&p=174083&hilit=outer+madhyamaka#p174083

So called subtle inner Madhyamaka is just taking appearances to be mind.

-----------

Greg wrote:
In the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism (Red Book), pg 169:

. . . it is stated in the Jewel Lamp of the Madhyamaka by the master Bhavya (skal-Idan): "The Madhyamaka of the Prasangika and the Svatantrika is the coarse, Outer Madhyamaka. It should indeed be expressed by those who profess well-informed intelligence during debates with [extremist] Outsiders, during the composition of great treatises, and while establishing texts which concern supreme reasoning. However, when the subtle, inner Madhyamaka is experientially cultivated, one should meditate on the nature of Yogacara-Madhyamaka."

The note associated with the quote indicates "The quotation given here does not occur in the extant Tibetan text of Bhavya's Madhyamakaratnapradipa, rather it paraphrases passages found on fols. 280-1 of the Derge canonical edn. of the text: dbu-ma, Vol. Tsha."

As far as I know the terms "Prasangika" and "Svatantrika" are Tibetan innovation when used to describe discrete approaches to Madhyamaka. So I'm guessing this "quote" is a rather loose "paraphrase" indeed. Can anyone shed some light on what it actually says in fols. 280-1 of the Derge canonical edn. of the Madhyamakaratnapradipa: dbu-ma, Vol. Tsha?

Malcolm wrote:
It is basically an explanation of madhyamaka view from a Shantarakshita style perspective.

There is no mention of either prasanga or svatantra in the entire text. It is not a text by Bhavaviveka. Bhavya is a much later master, post Shantarakshita.

This passage basically states that Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva and Candrakīrti present a so-called "coarse outer Madhyamakas" when they speak from the relative truth point of view of śrāvakas; but then Bhavya also presents a couple of citations by Āryadeva and Candrakīrti which shows that in terms of the relative truth these three masters support the concept of mind-only in relative truth, and that this is the inner subtle madhyamaka.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
Well this is a gzhan stong exposition is it not? Even though Kongtrul's gzhan stong was a reforming of Dolbulpa's original, you know what you're getting. Surely not a view that Vajrayāna as a whole identifies with, in fact I would say it is a minority view.
To the Gelugpas it is heresy. To the Karma Kagyus it is orthodoxy. So you can take your pick. Whatever floats your dharma boat.

krodha wrote:
Not only the Gelug, but the Drikung Kagyu and the majority of Nyingma as well (who uphold that the definitive view is the traditional freedom from extremes taught by Nāgārjuna, and the like, i.e. so-called 'rang stong'), to name a few. For some reason, the traditional view is painted by gzhan stong pas as advocating for a negative view, why I'm not sure, because a freedom from extremes naturally avoids erring into either extreme.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
Every time I glance at this thread topic it looks like it says "'the Self is real' according to T. Pain" and I halfway expect a profound exposition via auto tune to happen.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
The Mantra perspective can be expressed in this way:
A subtle, indestructible individual, the great self or person, who is radiant awareness co-existent with the six impure elements, is in every way the basis for the accumulation of actions.

- Kongtrul

("subtle, indestructible individual" = "indestructible subtle atman" = "mi shigs pa phra ba'i bdag")

krodha wrote:
Well this is a gzhan stong exposition is it not? Even though Kongtrul's gzhan stong was a reforming of Dolbulpa's original, you know what you're getting. Surely not a view that Vajrayāna as a whole identifies with, in fact I would say it is a minority view.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
...and especially in Vajrayana.

krodha wrote:
"The final [turning] for the sake of those who had reached fulfillment and who were of sharpest capacity taught the nature of all that is knowable, as it really is. As such, it bears no similarity to the self [ātman] of the Hindu heretics because these people in their ignorance speak of a 'self' that does not actually exist, being a mere imputation superimposed on reality."
- Longchenpa


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 3:48 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
There is no ground of awareness in the buddhadharma, and if one shows up it is a mere projection of deluded mind.
I'm not so sure you can make that a categorical statement.

krodha wrote:
Why is that?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 3:31 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
as soon as you say the "ground of awareness" or it is "unchanging" due to.......
then you are calling it True Self because those are the very meaning and definitions of what the True Self IS.

krodha wrote:
^^ This is Vedanta. There is no ground of awareness in the buddhadharma, and if one shows up it is a mere projection of deluded mind.

Also, if wisdom is 'unchanging' it is unchanging because it is the non-arising of phenomena. Meaning phenomena never arose in the first place, and that which hasn't arisen cannot cease, hence; ceaseless, unchanging, permanent and all the rest of the terms used to denote non-arising.

Truly though, 'unchanging' is one of the various inaccurate views of wisdom according to Dzogchen, but then again so is 'changing'.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 2:51 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Moreover, these sentient beings must have also discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conceptions of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self, because if they had not, their minds would inevitably grasp after such relative ideas. Further, these sentient beings must have already discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conception of the non-existence of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self. If they had not, their minds would still be grasping after such ideas. Therefore, every disciple who is seeking Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi should discard, not only conceptions of one's own selfhood, other selves, living beings and a Universal Selfhood, but should discard, also, all ideas about such conceptions and all ideas about the non-existence of such conceptions."
- Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra


And why is that? Because the 'self' is not a homogenous quality or capacity which can truly exist or not exist. 'Self' is a convenient conventional designation placed onto coarse and conditioned habits of grasping. The designation is attributed to a collection of habits and tendencies which construct and sustain the appearance of a personal reference point.  The point of the dharma is to overturn those constituent and underlying tendencies, habits etc., which create the compelling feeling of 'I', 'me', 'mine', 'self'. The self is precisely these various tendencies which are constantly playing out as long as karmic influence is governing one's condition. So unless we have severed that afflictive patterning through profound direct insight, the self is there whether we say it is or it isn't. Because the tendencies are habitual in nature, and the self is precisely the tendencies (though truly the self cannot be found within or apart from the tendencies), those tendencies must be exhausted completely before there is liberation.

Overall though the buddhadharma focuses on those subtle patterns. The self is the patterning, which is founded on ignorance, and is built up from there. We as sentient beings comprise a thick buildup of traces, and one of the primary habits is that of grasping. If we look at the self as grasping, then we can start to see the way the self is unfolding moment by moment.

If grasping at the existence of the self occurs, the self automatically arises, because grasping presupposes a grasper and that which is grasped. In contrast, if grasping at the idea that there is no self occurs, the self automatically arises. If grasping at the thought that one should refrain from grasping occurs, the self arises once again. Each act of identification and grasping gives rise to the illusion of grasper and grasped. Only direct wisdom insight and exhaustion of latent traces can overturn this process. Meaning; the direct apperception that the grasping itself is founded upon misunderstanding and delusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
Well yes, if you had to. But it would be unwise to haphazardly adopt or propagate such a view without first understanding the fine print associated with (and and implications of) that title in the context of the system concerned, in this case, Dzogchen. Your well known translator and doctor has gone out of his way to be clear about that. In fact you may recall a lengthy thread addressing precisely that point over on his forum, that you contributed to.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
'True self' or more accurately 'great self' [bdag nyid chen po] was Vairocana's term for the basis in Dzogpa Chenpo... but that doesn't mean it's literally a self or anything of the sort. Nor does it mean there is a true self. 'Ground of awareness' isn't a very good treatment of dharmakāya. Dharmakāya is the result as unobscured buddha mind i.e. emptiness. Dharmatā is the non-arising of dharmas, but more specifically one's nature which becomes apparent after recognition of the nature of mind [sems nyid]. Sems nyid i.e. cittatā implies anattā, in the context of the false reference point of mind [tib. sems, skt. citta], because it is the non-arising of mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also for the record; I never claimed my view was exempt from the reality claims cutting both ways. My point would be rendered null and void if I did.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 9:09 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
^ no doubt!

As soon as I read the OP I thought "que Son of Buddha, in 3, 2, 1..."


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 8:18 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
krodha wrote:
Being that this is a forum dedicated to the buddhadharma, the conclusion that the distinction ' is there in reality' is undoubtably going to implicate itself on numerous levels. Which is admittedly why a discussion of this nature is incredibly interesting.

For the record, I'm in no way calling for an abandoning of such distinctions, but am merely addressing the way we collectively relate to them, and the allegedly conclusive presuppositions they birth both consciously and subconsciously in relation to the perceived ecological hierarchies they necessarily imply.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
krodha wrote:
A gravitation towards either extreme (self or no-self), if envoked at all, is only ever elicited in conventional parlance. The heart of the matter is always the freedom from extremes i.e. emptiness.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
"Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals. "
It is not that which creates this alleged hierarchy, but history. Before the rise of man, the animals hunted and ate us as they saw fit.

asunthatneversets said:
Very true. I don't think it's an objection to the natural order of predator and prey. What's being addressed is the perverse subjugation and objectification of other beings as bio machines and so on... literally using them as a means to fulfill human interests. The anthropocentric falsehood he's addressing is simply the way that humanity's relationship to animals has evolved to be what it is today. Whether it's influences such as the church originally declaring that animals have no soul, which spilled over into scientific views, or otherwise. A prime example being the fact that in just the past five years, scientists have reformed their views to state that animals have consciousness, or that they have emotions etc. Which is ludicrous to think that many thought otherwise, the level of disconnect there is astonishing to say the least. I literally saw an article not even six months ago which said something to the order of; 'scientists declare that animals have consciousness'. Even the very titles 'animal' and 'human' sets humanity apart, Derrida has an excellent piece about this.

tobes said:
A while back I read Derrida's Beast and Sovereign, which may be the piece you're referring to. In any case, in that text (well, they were actually lectures) he was making a similar move. I find those kinds of arguments very unconvincing. It is very trendy to problematise the Aristotelian 'logocentrism' which has long pervaded western metaphysics and theology. i.e. that humans are privileged on account of their reason-speech. At the end of the day, I think the distinction holds. The day that zebras and turtles can organise themselves to build airports, raise taxes and debate philosophy on internet forums, is the day I change my view on the matter. I think it is compelling that 'animals' and 'humans' are distinct, on account of the ability that humans have developed to communicate and reason to the extent that they can build 'a shared world' or 'a civilisation'.

This doesn't deny that animals have consciousness, and in some cases, very sophisticated consciousness. Nor that they ought to have moral status, on account of the fact that they have sensation and feeling (an argument Singer makes). It simply preserves an obvious and necessary distinction. Derrida looks for binaries and seeks to deconstruct them. It is sometimes an interesting venture, but is also sometimes bordering on sophistry. In any case, neither the zebra nor the turtle are capable of following his logic, which seems to me to be the critical point.


krodha wrote:
The one I had in mind was The Animal That Therefore I Am:

Synopsis:
'The Animal That Therefore I Am is the long-awaited translation of the complete text of Jacques Derrida's ten-hour address to the 1997 Crisy conference entitled 'The Autobiographical Animal', the third of four such colloquia on his work. The book was assembled posthumously on the basis of two published sections, one written and recorded session, and one informal recorded session. The book is at once an affectionate look back over the multiple roles played by animals in Derrida's work and a profound philosophical investigation and critique of the relegation of animal life that takes place as a result of the distinction-dating from Descartes -between man as thinking animal and every other living species. That starts with the very fact of the line of separation drawn between the human and the millions of other species that are reduced to a single; the animal. Derrida finds that distinction, or versions of it, surfacing in thinkers as far apart as Descartes, Kant, Heidegger, Lacan, and Levinas, and he dedicates extended analyses to the question in the work of each of them. The book's autobiographical theme intersects with its philosophical analysis through the figures of looking and nakedness, staged in terms of Derrida's experience when his cat follows him into the bathroom in the morning. In a classic deconstructive reversal, Derrida asks what this animal sees and thinks when it sees this naked man. Yet the experiences of nakedness and shame also lead all the way back into the mythologies of man's dominion over the beasts and trace a history of how man has systematically displaced onto the animal his own failings or bêtises. The Animal That Therefore I Am is at times a militant plea and indictment regarding, especially, the modern industrialized treatment of animals. However, Derrida cannot subscribe to a simplistic version of animal rights that fails to follow through, in all its implications, the questions and definitions of life to which he returned in much of his later work.'

And yes, granted humans have developed to communicate and reason to the extent that a 'shared world' and 'civilization' can be built; but I suppose the question would then have to be raised as to what constitutes being 'civilized'? Or what are the standards by which we are measuring and defining 'civility'? Civilization in and of itself seems to be an idea that has been anthropomorphized and is assumed to suggest (and match) what we as humans deem acceptable as a functional culture and socioeconomic structure. We even project this onto other "uncivilized" cultures within our own species, demonstrated succinctly via the threefold world categorization; first world to third world countries. However, does our 'technologically advanced' culture constitute 'civilization' any more than any other congregation, or organization of sentient beings on this planet, or elsewhere? Even in our technological advancements, we cannot seem to uphold the same standard of 'civility' in our relationships with each other as a species or in our relationship with our environment. Whereas animals and other indigenous populations of human beings have no such issue, who is more civilized in that context?

So there are various ways to looks at this, and I would have to argue that we as human beings, living in our technologically advanced societies, are far from civilized by any meaning of the word. We blindly worship our socioeconomic structures, and rape our environment of resources by any means necessary, and at any cost to support that structure (which in and of itself is failing, in all of its divine wisdom). In my opinion, the true civility is the ability to look into another sentient beings eyes, and see the same sentience staring back at me, no different than my own. Why on earth would I assume my own evolved reasoning and communicational apparatus makes me anything more than that other being? Neither the turtle or the zebra are able to follow such logic? What type of game is that? Holding another being to a standard outside of their innate ability which is founded upon the premise that our own abilities are the standard they should be able to meet (and shame on them for not being able to do so), how is that civilized? It is anything but.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
"Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals. "
It is not that which creates this alleged hierarchy, but history. Before the rise of man, the animals hunted and ate us as they saw fit.

krodha wrote:
Very true. I don't think it's an objection to the natural order of predator and prey. What's being addressed is the perverse subjugation and objectification of other beings as bio machines and so on... literally using them as a means to fulfill human interests. The anthropocentric falsehood he's addressing is simply the way that humanity's relationship to animals has evolved to be what it is today. Whether it's influences such as the church originally declaring that animals have no soul, which spilled over into scientific views, or otherwise. A prime example being the fact that in just the past five years, scientists have reformed their views to state that animals have consciousness, or that they have emotions etc. Which is ludicrous to think that many thought otherwise, the level of disconnect there is astonishing to say the least. I literally saw an article not even six months ago which said something to the order of; 'scientists declare that animals have consciousness'. Even the very titles 'animal' and 'human' sets humanity apart, Derrida has an excellent piece about this.

All in all it should be blatantly obvious that humanity puts itself on a pedestal. But yes you're right, animals used to hunt us too, and still may in some regions of the world. What they don't do however, is put us in factory farms by the tens of millions, pump us full of antibiotics, milk us and systematically kill us for our meat or profitable parts. When a systematic killing of humans occurs we call it genocide, when a systematic killing of animals occurs, we call it the standard.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
This thread wouldn't be complete without a little love from Earth Crisis...

Earth Crisis - New Ethic

This is the new ethic.
Animals' lives are their own and must be given respect.
Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals.
It's time to set them free.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Are they still allowed to kill and eat each other?
Is it okay for some primates to be omnivores?
.
.
.

krodha wrote:
Not my writing, but Karl Earth Crisis is a nice guy, I'm sure he'd give his opinion if you really wanted to ask.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Online videos of Tummo
Content:
krodha wrote:
^ very true.

Wanting to cultivate the physical heat of tummo to melt some snow or cut your gas bill in half during the winter isn't going to cut it, ha (not implying that was anyone's intentions here).

The physical heat of tummo is an expression of energy and correct practice, but those outer signs aren't the main point of tummo. Sure, the increase in body heat is beneficial for wandering yogis who need to survive the harsh climates where this practice hails from, but the 'heat' of tummo is truly meant as an inner process. Just as 'heat' is cultivated in the worldly yogas of the path of accumulation and joining. The increase of heat on the path (and in tummo) is the increase of wisdom [prajñā] i.e. the wisdom fire. The bodhisattva ideal being the main inspiration, just as it is elsewhere.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Online videos of Tummo
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
I'm sure you can learn the basic tummo practice from a book from Lama Yeshe, why would he write instructions and practices on/for tummo if not to make the disciples taste the experience of tummo. Garchen Rinpoche has also a practice on the internet that is a tummo practice.

krodha wrote:
Books which feature an explanation of the sadhāna are supposed to be supplementary reference material for those who have received transmission and instruction from a qualified guru. Sure we're all grown adults and people can (and will) do as they please, but it is strongly advised that aspirants seek intimate instruction for practices such as tummo. Especially due to the fact that tummo is an energy practice which is working directly with rlung [skt. prāna] via drag rlung, kumbhaka and so on. The various extended holds, contractions, postures, specific breathing techniques etc. can be dangerous if executed improperly.

Plus there are various signs to watch out for, primarily the winds congregating in specific areas, which if is not addressed, adjusted and/or compensated for, can produce myriad imbalances and disorders of the winds. This is why one will generally receive tsa rlung instruction as well. In addition if the individual is lacking steady one pointed concentration (extended engagement, placement, stabilization etc.) the associated visualizations aren't going to work. Not to mention that tummo is generally a retreat type practice, and will most likely not issue the same results for someone who is only dabbling in it for an hour (give or take) a day.

There's no problem with reading about tummo and familiarizing with the practice, so that when the opportunity arises to receive instruction you can ask questions and get clarifications. But the text or video instruction alone are insufficient, in my opinion at least, the living transmission (from the qualified guru) should be sought out above all else.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
krodha wrote:
This thread wouldn't be complete without a little love from Earth Crisis...

Earth Crisis - New Ethic

This is the new ethic.
Animals' lives are their own and must be given respect.
Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals.
It's time to set them free.
Their lives reduced to biomachines in the factory, farm and laboratory.
Dairy, eggs and meat, fur, suede, wool, leather are the end products of torture, confinement and murder.
I abjure their use out of reverence for all innocent life.
Wildlifes' right to live in peace in their natural environment
without this civilization's interference can no longer be denied.
Must no longer be denied.
To make a civilization worthy of the word civilized the cruelty must end, starting within or own lives.
Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals.
It's time to set them free.
Veganism is the essence of compassion and peaceful living.
The animals are not ours to abuse or dominate.
I abjure their use out of reverence ...
I abjure their use out of reverence ...
I abjure their use out of reverence for all innocent life.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Title: Re: Memory and Impermanence
Content:
dharmagoat said:
It is not memory that makes a being aware, and it could be argued that memories serve to detract from awareness of the moment, so I question whether a being without memory would be in any way "dumbed down". There would be indifference to impermanence, but not necessarily any decrease in awareness.

And there would still be suffering based on unpleasant sensations.

krodha wrote:
True, memory does not necessarily make a sentient being aware, meaning; cognitive processes continue to function in the absence of the ability to retain memory. However there would be no retention of cognitive information and therefore one's condition would be no different than that of a newborn infant. Hence why working with individuals who suffer from dementia is essentially equivalent to working with a child.

'Dumbed down' is appropriate in this case because this scenario would be equivalent to simply functioning in the causal ālaya, with no hope of acquiring the type of insight needed to be liberated from a predicament of that nature.

Now on the other hand, if the individual is able to cut through memory via direct insight into its emptiness, that is a different story. In that case the influence of memory would be pacified through prajñā, and that species of insight would most likely collapse the ālaya, inducing a freedom from the delusory reference point maintained by memory and imputing ignorance. Quite the opposite of the 'dumbed down' abiding in the limited, karmically influenced structure of mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: Memory and Impermanence
Content:
krodha wrote:
If memory was absent or the ability to retain memories deteriorated, the individual's condition would still remain in a state of dumbed down indeterminate indifference. There would be no experience of impermanence just as there's no experience of impermanence in unconscious states. But that isn't equivalent to a true liberation from impermanence etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 5:51 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
thigle said:
It seems in every way, that some people confuse "tantric preliminaries" with "dzogchen" and the "natural state" with an "artificial state".

krodha wrote:
The Dzogchen teachings also have preliminaries available for practitioners who need them, which is mostly everyone. Khor 'das ru shan is training which aids in distinguishing samsara and nirvana, meaning; distinguishing mind [sems] from the nature of mind [sems nyid]. Inner rushan is called the purification of the six lokas, and is a valuable practice which is considered to be a vital preliminary for man ngag sde practices.

It has nothing to do with tantric preliminaries and everything to do with the system of Atiyoga. If one is unable to recognize the nature of their mind then there is no way the natural state can be known. Any practice associated with Dzogchen which helps the aspirant to recognize their nature (initially or continually) can be called a 'preliminary'.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
mutsuk said:
With Thögel you don't visualize, you contemplate the arising of the dynamism of your natural state.

anjali said:
The dynamism of the natural state could also be contemplated through sound. An approach that seems not much discussed, even by way of theory. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on this.

krodha wrote:
You may be referring to the practice of the sound of the elements. It seems that your sentiments regarding the overlooking of this practice is generally true, even historically, The Third Dzogchen Rinpoche writes:

"In the Heart Essence of Vimalimitra yet another approach is taken. To the preliminaries mentioned above, a practice involving the sounds of the four elements is added. In some systems stemming from this lineage, the practice of the four elements and the outer and inner separation practices [khor 'das ru shan] are not addressed, or are mentioned only in passing. In his Background Teachings on the Direct Leap [thögal] from the Guru's Quintessence, Longchenpa clearly emphasizes the importance of the preliminaries of the three gates relative to these other practices. In this text, he explains the preliminaries of the three gates as the main preliminary practices, while concerning the yogas of the four elements and the separation practices, he states, 'It is permissible to precede the preliminaries of the three gates by training in the sounds and nature of the four elements and the conduct of the separation of samsara and nirvana, or to simply skip these steps.' Some instruction manuals omit these practices altogether."

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche mentions the practice of the sounds of the elements in his twenty one sems 'dzins text and states that the practice is discussed in the sgra thal 'gyur tantra.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
This should spice up the conversation a little. If you remove the frontal cortex from the chicken, is it still suffering?

"...But Ford goes a step further and proposes a “Headless Chicken Solution.” This would involve removing the cerebral cortex of the chicken to inhibit its sensory perceptions so that it could be produced in more densely packed conditions without the associated distress. The brain stem for the chicken would be kept intact so that the homeostatic functions continue to operate, allowing it to grow."

more here...
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/headless-chicken-solution/

can samsara get any weirder?
.
.
.

krodha wrote:
The way this metaphorically mirrors the current socioeconomic system in general is uncanny. And the way it microcosmically frames our attitude towards (and relationship to) nature in general isn't even metaphorical. If only we could subjugate everything by process of lobotomy! (sarcasm of course)


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 8:26 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:


pueraeternus said:
What if the direct introduction didn't work?

theanarchist said:
Then you continue practicing sutra and tantra practices

krodha wrote:
Many practices are available to help refine or further reveal the intention of the introduction. Such as the four ting nge 'dzins [contemplations] of sems sde or the sems 'dzins and so on.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
krodha wrote:
The apparent causal implications only ever arise in relation to one's knowledge of wisdom. Wisdom itself is complete but (for 99% of practitioners) our knowledge of wisdom requires refinement.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 4th, 2014 at 10:24 AM
Title: Re: Alaya consciousness - many questions.
Content:
krodha wrote:
There's ālaya [kun gzhi] and ālayavijñāna [kun gzhi rnam shes]. The ālaya consciousness is the latter. Both can carry different meanings and may be defined differently depending on the tradition concerned.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 4th, 2014 at 9:12 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
krodha wrote:
Guty are you dmr82 on vajracakra?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 1st, 2014 at 1:33 PM
Title: Re: Studying The Heart Sutra (Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya)
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Ceaseless Echoes of the Great Silence: A Commentary on the Heart Sūtra" by Khenpo Palden Sherab Rinpoche is another good text.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Alien & UFOs thread...
Content:
padma norbu said:
Just bumping because I get the feeling skeptics never heard of this before.

krodha wrote:
McKinnon makes a good point about the suppressed technology. I have no doubt that there is advance technology available at this point which is suppressed due to the fact that (i) it either hasn't been streamlined into a profitable form, or (ii) is not profitable at all and therefore will not see the light of day. The only reason we're all still using vehicles powered by gasoline is due to the fact that entire economies revolve around the oil trade and so on. These empires and corporations are not about to let their bread and butter fall to the wayside unless they can adjust their current structures, so that they evolve with (and compensate for) whatever the new reigning paradigm in energy would be. Money makes the world go 'round.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 1:40 PM
Title: Re: Alien & UFOs thread...
Content:
krodha wrote:
I saw a UFO while driving home from ganapuja about six months ago (in the SF east bay area). It was right over my car, and was flying pretty low. It didn't make any noise and it was triangular with various colored lights, flew very slow, practically hovering for about 20 seconds and then it picked up its pace and flew off. Bizarre experience.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Wayuu said:
I have been told the same from some students in the comunity here, but doesn't that statements seem contradictory compared to what is said in the K.G.?

krodha wrote:
The kun byed rgyal po is speaking from the ultimate standpoint as primordial wisdom. The system of Dzogchen is a means to recognize primordial wisdom, integrate with primordial wisdom, and then actualize buddhahood. That is what practice is for.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Wayuu said:
Thanks for your replies asunthatneversets, have you asked this question to a qualified teacher?

krodha wrote:
Yes, and here is a qualified teacher clarifying this point:

"Lopon comments that while the practitioner is not distracted but is continuously in the natural state it is as if he or she is in space - whatever is done, no traces are left behind. As we said, whether you paint black or white on space nothing remains. The base that keeps the traces is lost; it is empty. 
Of course this only applies to a practitioner who has achieved continuous contemplation. For other people who still grasp at their karmic traces this does not apply. When the Lopon first came to Swayambhu in Nepal in 1944 he met some Tibetans with whom he travelled for some days. One man was a former monk who had a wife and children and was carrying a huge load of luggage on his back. When he was a monk he had met Dega Rinpoche, a famous Dzogchenpa, in the mountains and consequentially he gave up his robes because he felt he was too tied up with the vinaya vows. But Lopon pointed out that he was equally tied up with his children. The man replied that in Dzogchen it is said that it does not matter what you do - so he was free to do anything and that was okay. But this is a complete misunderstanding of Dzogchen. The teachings only apply when you are totally absorbed in the natural state. It depends on your practice and only you can judge. 
So it is a paradox that beginners must take actions even though the ultimate Dzogchen view has no action. The beginner must take a very strong action - a decision - otherwise there will be doubt and hesitancy. All the preparatory methods help us realize the natural state. But once it is seen and understood then the situation is different. The experience Dzogchenpa would not need to do preparatory practices at all."
- Lopon Tenzin Namdak

and another from him on the same issue:

"In the practice of Dzogchen, we do not find it necessary to do visualizations of deities or to do recitations like the Refuge and Bodhichitta. Some would say that these are not necessary to do at all, but this is speaking from the side of the Natural State only. They say in the Natural State, everything is present there already in potential, and so there is nothing lacking and nothing more to do to add or acquire anything. This is fine. But on the side of the practitioner, there is much to do and practices such as Refuge and Bodhichitta are very necessary. In its own terms, Dzogchen has no rules; it is open to everything. But does this mean we can do just what we feel like at the moment? On the side of the Natural State, this is true and there are no restrictions or limitations. All appearances are manifestations of mind (sems kyi snang-ba), like reflections seen in a mirror, and there is no inherent negativity or impurity in them. Everything is perfectly all right just as it is, as the energy (rtsal) of the Nature of Mind in manifestation. It is like white and black clouds passing overhead in the sky; they equally obscure the face of the sun. When they depart, there are no traces left behind. However, that is speaking only on the side of the Natural State, which is like the clear, open sky, unaffected by the presence or absence of these clouds. For the sky, it is all the same. But on the side of the practitioner, it is quite different because we mistakenly believe these clouds are solid, opaque, and quite real and substantial. As practitioners we must first come to an understanding of the insubstantiality and unreality of all these clouds which obscure the sky of our own Nature of Mind (sems-nyid). It is our Tawa (lta-ba), or view, our way of looking at things, which is basic and fundamental, and we must begin here. Then we must practice and attain realization. So on the side of the practitioner, practice and commitment are most certainly required. The Natural State in itself is totally open and clear and spacious like the sky but we, as individuals, are not totally open and unobstructed.”
- Lopon Tenzin Namdak


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Wayuu said:
But when you say is useful for me you are talking about duality again... doesn't that just distract us? isn't better to  go direct?

asunthatneversets said:
You as an individual are the result of confusion (or ignorance) about your primordial state. Your primordial state is originally pure and is always undefiled, however your knowledge of that primordial state requires introduction and refinement. The kun byed rgyal po is saying that from the perspective of your primordial state [primordial wisdom i.e. ye shes], practice, rituals and so on are extraneous, because your primordial state is naturally perfected. You as an individual on the other hand, need to refine your knowledge of your primordial state, and therefore for you, practice and rituals and so on, are necessary. So it's a paradox. The ultimate state requires nothing, but you in your relative condition do require practice. When your knowledge of your primordial state is complete (through practice and integration), there will no longer be a difference between you and primordial wisdom. Until that time though, relative effort is required.

Wayuu said:
What I understand is that effort is not the way in any condition, but as I said, I'm just a beginner, I will try to talk to a qualified teacher and let you know his opinion.

krodha wrote:
Skillful effort is required until the ultimate nature of mind [sems nyid] is recognized. Through that recognition, the ability to distinguish mind from wisdom occurs, and the practice then is to familiarize and rest in one's knowledge [rig pa] of wisdom [ye shes]. That practice is 'effortless', because effort necessarily entails a subject who is attempting to 'do something' or 'maintain something'. However there is nothing which is being 'done' in that sense, because that definitive rigpa is free of mind, and is therefore free of a subject which is mediating experience. So the praxis is simply resting in that effortless natural state.

The definitive practice is effortless, however initially, some (skillful) effort is required. Good that you're maintaining a relationship with a qualified teacher though, the seemingly contradictory paradoxes like the issue you've raised here are precisely why the guru is an indispensable aspect of Dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Wayuu said:
But when you say is useful for me you are talking about duality again... doesn't that just distract us? isn't better to  go direct?

krodha wrote:
You as an individual are the result of confusion (or ignorance) about your primordial state. Your primordial state is originally pure and is always undefiled, however your knowledge of that primordial state requires introduction and refinement. The kun byed rgyal po is saying that from the perspective of your primordial state [primordial wisdom i.e. ye shes], practice, rituals and so on are extraneous, because your primordial state is naturally perfected. You as an individual on the other hand, need to refine your knowledge of your primordial state, and therefore for you, practice and rituals and so on, are necessary. So it's a paradox. The ultimate state requires nothing, but you in your relative condition do require practice. When your knowledge of your primordial state is complete (through practice and integration), there will no longer be a difference between you and primordial wisdom. Until that time though, relative effort is required.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
But if you want to know my opinion: when dreaming at night, stuff that happens makes sense, i.e. dream "causality" makes sense. After you wake up, the dream often appears in retrospect arbitrary and incoherent, and it would seem the height of folly to try to analyze how and according to what "causality" your grandmother turned into a bus . I believe this so-called waking reality is no different: while we're in the midst of it, it seems real, significant and consistent. When we die, or when we attain some measure of "lucid waking", it then seems like a weird or possibly mildly interesting dream, nothing more.
Now you sound like a Yogacarin.

krodha wrote:
It's the same for Dzogchen, and most other dharma systems.

"At no time throughout the beginningless succession of lifetimes has there ever been an actual birth. There has only been the appearance of birth. There has never been actual death, only the transformation of appearances like the shift from the dream state to the waking state... throughout the beginningless succession of lifetimes there has never been any actual experience of transition or going from one state to another, or any actual experience of being located in some other place. This is analogous to the images in a dream."
- Longchenpa


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
The Buddha was also clear that what was not-self(anatta) was suffering.

krodha wrote:
Again, this inaccurate misconception of yours has been demonstrated by various individuals to be false.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: enjoying samsara
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
According to Gampopa, the first two (of four) obstacles to liberation are attachment to the things of this life, and attachment to the pleasures of samsara. So tread lightly in your enjoyment!

Johnny Dangerous said:
What are the pleasures of samsara in this context though? is a feeling of freedom due to lack of clinging to the past for instance something that you can "enjoy" without more clinging?

krodha wrote:
One's life being more enjoyable is a common (and good) indicator that your relationship with the teachings is healthy. Gampopa is warning against complacency with samsara and attachment to aspects of samsara. Mindfulness of the cyclical and impermanent nature of samsara is what's important, things can go great and life can be good but what comes will go, and what arises will fall. That's the only point he's making. The fact that you made the OP in the first place shows that you're mindful of this already so you're good to go.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: enjoying samsara
Content:
krodha wrote:
According to Gampopa, the first two (of four) obstacles to liberation are attachment to the things of this life, and attachment to the pleasures of samsara. So tread lightly in your enjoyment!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
I'm not asking about first causes, but rather bases of imputation in the Madhyamaka view. The whole magical person thing is bogus & irrelevant, as I have shown.

Malcolm said:
I already explained this: the basis of imputation is an appearance. Some trends on Madhyamaka then assert that appearances are mind. Since appearances/mind are not findable on analysis, they/it are equated with illusion. Illusions lack any inherent nature because they are dependent originations. Dependent originations are free from extremes and, in the final analysis, inexpressible. None of this is circular in anyway.

You ask, what dependently arises -- we can say all kinds of things, but in the end, it boils down to appearance. What are appearances? Dependent arisings. What dependently arises? Appearances. This is not a circularity, it is an equation appearances = dependent origination.

If you want to be more specific you can say what appearance? A rope or a car, for example. Upon what is a rope designated? It's parts. Upon what are the parts designated? Their parts, if they have any. If they do not have further parts, then they are designated upon moments, etc., until one runs out of bases of imputation. At that point, you have [intellectually] discovered emptiness, i.e., the absence of a ultimate or final basis of designation. At each stage of the analysis the previous basis of imputation no longer appears since it is has been deconstructed. As Shantideva points out:

When an existent or a nonexistent
does not exist in the presence of the mind, 
at that time since there is no other aspect
[concepts] are fully pacified as there is no objective support [dmigs pa, ālambana].
yes, rigpa resolves all questions about the nature of reality, but there ain't no rigpa in Madhyamaka.
Actually, Shantideva's quote above shows that there is vidyā in Madhyamaka, as the Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra states:

The Dharma free from the extremes of conceptual grasping.
is directly perceived without dwelling on an object.

These two statements should be understood to have the same import.

krodha wrote:
Malcolm, should the rig pa rang shar quote say "the dharmatā free from extremes"? Or is "the Dharma free from extremes" correct in this context?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
I wouldn't say so. Nāgārjuna's entire exposition concerns what occurs after the basis isn't recognized in Dzogchen.
I would tend to agree with you, but a Gelugpa would not accept the idea of a "basis" at all. Once you say that there is a "basis", no matter how you define or don't define it, you've left Nagarjuna behind--unless you accept "In Praise of Dharmadhatu" as authored by Nagarjuna.

krodha wrote:
I'm not saying that Madhyamaka prescribes to the Dzogchen view. I'm saying that within the Dzogchen model, when it comes to what occurs from the standpoint of dependent origination occurring via mind and so on, it's perfectly acceptable to reference Nāgārjuna's view. I'm in no way saying that Madhyanaka by itself has anything to do with the basis or anything else.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
sure, but that does not address the fact that the traditional presentation of imputation requires a rope first. Im sure thats why paratantra was made up. you can break it down to atoms, but what is the "rope" that atoms are imputed on?

anjali said:
Depends on what you think emptiness is. It's not nothing, in the nihilistic sense. If you accept the trikaya model, then you have emptiness+cognizance+radiance. Throw ignorance into the mix, and you are off and running with endless fabrications.

gad rgyangs said:
discussing Nagarjuna & Madhyamaka from the Tantric or Dzoghchen POV is anachronistic.

krodha wrote:
I wouldn't say so. Nāgārjuna's entire exposition concerns what occurs after the basis isn't recognized in Dzogchen. Dependent origination is the name of the game when it comes to the proliferation of mind and avidyā.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Either way, Dzogpa Chenpo never advocates for a substantial existence.

smcj said:
Neither does Great Madhyamaka advocate for a "substantial" existence. As I quoted Samba as saying on p. 19 of this thread, "the ineffable ground that is also empty (but not empti-ness-a-thing)" is a restating of the Great Madhyamak view.

krodha wrote:
Empti-ness-a-thing?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
Also, you simply reiterated what I wrote here, and this still isn't a valid grounds to assert that the Dzogchen and gzhan stong views are the same. Dudjom Rinpoche is clearly advocating for both views in context.
Yes, I restated what you wrote in clearer language. Yes, Dudjom R. advocates both views, one for an intellectual approach, one for a meditational/experiential approach.

Dudjom R. p.162 "The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism":

…the Madhyamika are divided into both adherents of the coarse, Outer Madhyamaka which claims there is no substantial existence, and the subtle, inner Great Madhyamaka of the definitive meaning. (underlining mine)

Dudjom R. subscribes to the 3rd turning as definitive. You are more than welcome to follow ChNN's lead on this, but his opinion is not universally held.

krodha wrote:
Either way, Dzogpa Chenpo never advocates for a substantial existence.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
Dudjom Rinpoche stated that it's acceptable to hold a gzhan stong view in certain circumstances regarding practice. I believe he then also stated that in post-meditation and in instances where discussion/debate was occurring, the rang stong view is appropriate.
I believe what D.R. said was that Prasangika view is best if the subject of emptiness is approached intellectually, and Great Madhyamaka view is best if the subject of emptiness is approached from an experiential/meditational perspective. He calls the Prasangika the "coarse outer Madhyamaka" as opposed to the "subtle inner Madhyamaka". He subscribes to the 3rd turning as definitive. I've got the quote(s) somewhere in the Big Red Book. I will look them up if you so desire.

krodha wrote:
Also, you simply reiterated what I wrote here, and this still isn't a valid grounds to assert that the Dzogchen and gzhan stong views are the same. Dudjom Rinpoche is clearly advocating for both views in context.

On top of that, as to what is definitive and what isn't, this is always going to be a reflection of the individual concerned. That being said, there are many Dzogchenpas who consider Prasanga to be definitive, and others who attest that the third turning does not overturn or contradict the fundamental view championed by the second turning. Wanting to see something different is a common proclivity of those who err towards an eternalistic view.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
Dudjom Rinpoche stated that it's acceptable to hold a gzhan stong view in certain circumstances regarding practice. I believe he then also stated that in post-meditation and in instances where discussion/debate was occurring, the rang stong view is appropriate.
I believe what D.R. said was that Prasangika is best if the subject of emptiness is approached intellectually, and Great Madhyamaka is best if the subject of emptiness is approached from a meditational perspective. I've got the quote somewhere in the Big Red Book. I will look it up if you so desire.

However, as I've said, ChNN disagrees, which is his right to do. So it is not as if there is a right and a wrong here, just different opinions by two qualified experts about a subject that is ineffable anyway.

krodha wrote:
The proper view of the basis is original purity [ka dag], which is a freedom from extremes.

As for an alleged controversy regarding the nature of the Dzogchen view in reference to gzhan stong and so on, I don't think there is one. Maybe for gzhan stong pa's there is. The only issue you're going to run into is wanting to see some aspect of Dzogchen as suggesting there is something which isn't empty. The system is very clear in its view, Honesty I'm not even sure where one would find some information to misinterpret so that they could err into a view of inherency.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
Not in the least. The basis [gzhi] is primordial wisdom [ye shes]. Completely empty.
Exactly so. That is the view. What is exactly so? That the basis in Dzogchen is similar to that of gzhan stong?
In my opinion, yes. However Dudjom R. subscribed to Great Madhyamaka/Shentong view also, so I'm in good company.

On the other hand ChNN does not, so it is controversial. It is not settled, nor will it be in our lifetimes.

krodha wrote:
Dudjom Rinpoche stated that it's acceptable to hold a gzhan stong view in certain circumstances regarding practice. I believe he then also stated that in post-meditation and in instances where discussion/debate was occurring, the rang stong view is appropriate.

Dzogchen itself is free of either view but if it has to accord with one, rang stong would be more accurate. As is seen with Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche's advocacy for Nāgārjuna's view being identical to the Dzogchen view, in the sense of both championing a freedom from extremes.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
I am of the opinion that Dzogchen's "ineffable ground that is also empty (but not empti-ness-a-thing)" is a re-stating of Great Madhyamaka, a.k.a. Shentong view.

asunthatneversets said:
Not in the least. The basis [gzhi] is primordial wisdom [ye shes]. Completely empty.

smcj said:
Exactly so. That is the view.

krodha wrote:
What is exactly so? That the basis in Dzogchen is similar to that of gzhan stong?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
I am of the opinion that Dzogchen's "ineffable ground that is also empty (but not empti-ness-a-thing)" is a re-stating of Great Madhyamaka, a.k.a. Shentong view.

krodha wrote:
Not in the least. The basis [gzhi] is primordial wisdom [ye shes]. Completely empty.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
pensum said:
Well, whatever the case, at least we now have evidence that at least one quite remarkable siddhi is possible:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

asunthatneversets said:
Not trying to naysay, because it would be cool if this was legitimate, but I'm pretty sure that's a fly crawling on the camera lens.

pensum said:
Oh ye of little faith! Perhaps if he was not Hindu, but Buddhist you would view things differently.

krodha wrote:
I thought he was Buddhist. Whether someone is Buddhist or Hindu doesn't matter to me! I don't allow my personal affinity for Buddhism to influence my judgement of things beyond the principles of the systems.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 12:06 PM
Title: Re: Non-meditation and distractions
Content:
krodha wrote:
The non-meditation they're speaking of is resting in the ultimate nature of mind [sems nyid] so it's free of a reference point. That is why it's called 'non-meditation', because it's free of mind, and is therefore free of an agent which is performing a meditation. Non-meditation from the standpoint of mind isn't possible, but (introduction from your teacher, along with) practices like śamatha, if done correctly, will help to create the right conditions for recognition of the mind's nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
pensum said:
Well, whatever the case, at least we now have evidence that at least one quite remarkable siddhi is possible:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

krodha wrote:
Not trying to naysay, because it would be cool if this was legitimate, but I'm pretty sure that's a fly crawling on the camera lens.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
If you ever get a chance compare the teachings of Ven Maha Boowa (Theravadan) to Ven Dolpopa (Shentong).

krodha wrote:
It's not surprising that two individuals who err into eternalism would be similar in their expositions.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: McKenna's Stoned Ape Theory
Content:
krodha wrote:
And some more... Joe Rogan talking about the Stoned Ape theory and the evolution of Humans. Taken from his The Joe Rogan Experience Podcast #79 with Redban And Jon Lajoie:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: McKenna's Stoned Ape Theory
Content:
krodha wrote:
Here's an interesting discussion about the 'stoned ape theory' between Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock, the topic comes up around 1:10:00

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Jeeprs "
The notion that nirvana is annihilation of the self is close to nihilist. Buddhism often sails very close to nihilism and attracts many people who have nihilist views. It's a very delicate matter. I don't think Buddhism is nihilist, but it's a very difficult question.
SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885 Ven Bodhi translation
"What is suffering is not-self"

whatever is devoid of a self is suffering,if Nirvana was devoid of a self it would be suffering also.

krodha wrote:
Your misconceptions regarding this notion have been addressed and refuted numerous times.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: The Feeling Is The Prayer (?)
Content:
krodha wrote:
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has said the same thing, he spoke of students who simply go through the motions with their practices and don't incorporate the feeling and intention of the practice, and they come to him and ask why their practice isn't going well. He said the intention and the feeling are paramount in our practice.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Jnana Sagara
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Isn't Jnana Sagara Yeshe Tsogyal?

krodha wrote:
She immediately came to mind when I saw this thread as well... it's how she is referred to in her mantra.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 10:48 AM
Title: Re: Namkhas (colored-thread elemental) are they only Bon?
Content:
ngodrup said:
Is there a DC member in the San Francisco Bay Area who is good
at constructing a Namkha? I would like in-person assistance or
to have one made for me. Thanks.

krodha wrote:
Do you go to Dondrub Ling at all? I know there's been a Namkha workshop there before, and we just did a Namkha rite last month for someone during a group puja. If not I can probably get you in contact with someone though.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 9:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Caz said:
Is this Rigpa the same as Clear light ? or is it a seperate entity ?

krodha wrote:
(Started this post before I saw Malcolm's reply but figure I'd post this anyway) As far as Clear Light goes I'm not very well versed, but perhaps this will point you in the right direction:

cloudburst wrote:
I wonder if you feel that very subtle mind of clear light and view of Dzogchen are same? If not, what is difference?

Malcolm wrote:
If by "subtle mind of clear light" you mean an "uncontrived momentary awareness" (ma bcos pa shes pa skad cig ma), then the view is similar.

cloudburst wrote:
I suppose I do not know if this is what I mean, as this terminology falls outside my experience. How is this uncontrived momentary awareness different from my moment to moment uncontrived awareness?

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is summed up nicely by "Parting From The Four Attachments "If grasping arises, it is no the view."
(The above is from this thread: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=3483 )

This also may be helpful:

Clarity, Rigpa and Interpretations of Clear Light:
https://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/06/clarity-rigpa-and-interpretations-of.html?m=1


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 8:09 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
What is the difference between primordial and non gradual? Primordial is the reality right? Having that actually become beneficial, that's where it's either gradual or non gradual.

krodha wrote:
Gradual and non-gradual are modes of realization, wisdom is originally pure and is therefore free of such partialities. As described in these statements from Longchenpa shared by Malcolm some time ago:

"Because an object to realize is not established since that ultimate dharmatā is beyond mind, a so called 'realization' in the relative is described to be solely a deluded concept."

And,

"Here, since it is demonstrated there is nothing to be realized, nothing introduced, beyond view and meditation, it is called 'beyond realization and non-realization'."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Primordial wisdom [ye shes] is originally pure [ka dag] and naturally perfected [lhun grub], all that is required is recognition. From the standpoint of wisdom the whole charade of samsāra and nirvāna is illusory and unreal.

Caz said:
If its naturally perfected why is it unmanifest ? If it is Primordial and naturally perfected why is there Samsara in the first place ?

krodha wrote:
It is manifest, just unrecognized. Samsāra seems to appear due to the non-recognition of wisdom, but like a spinning fire wheel it is just an illusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Caz said:
How can Buddhahood be Inherently accomplished when it is not manifest ? If it was Inherent as suggested then by nature it would be unchanging and hence never unmanifest yet sentient beings still experience Samsaric suffering and have to work hard to accomplish Enlightenment.

The potentiality is always present but how could Buddhahood be present in the mind of an ordinary being ?

krodha wrote:
Primordial wisdom [ye shes] is originally pure [ka dag] and naturally perfected [lhun grub], all that is required is recognition. From the standpoint of wisdom the whole charade of samsāra and nirvāna is illusory and unreal.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
Indeed don't reject meditation, so long as you also don't accept it. To me, this is like creating a hypothetical universe and arguing why it won't help or hurt anyone so there's nothing to worry about.

krodha wrote:
It's because mind is an illusory reference point which arises due to grasping [accepting and rejecting]. Since one's nature it is free of mind, it is free of acceptance and rejection. If one conceptualizes vidyā free from mind, or grasps at realization as something that can be acquired, then mind will arise.

The quote is also saying that if the statements in the first paragraph are interpreted as advocating for a rejection meditation or realization, and this notion is grasped to, then mind will arise. There's nothing to realize from the standpoint of vidyā, because vidyā is free of mind [subject relating to objects]. There's also nothing to meditate upon from the standpoint of vidyā, because vidyā is free of mind [subject involved in contrived meditation].


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 29th, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Title: Re: Thamal gyi shepa vs. baby rigpa vs. rigpa (etc.)
Content:
krodha wrote:
Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Dudjom Lingpa and Jean-Luc Achard are reputable sources. But your scrutiny is both understandable and warranted so no worries.

For the sake of being clear though, that wasn't advocating for a binary model. The expression of rigpa as mere clarity is simply the mind, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche refers to it as 'rigpa mistaken as illusory mind'. The authentic rigpa that the praxis of Dzogchen is based on is the knowledge of our nature, which is accessed through recognition of the mind's nature. Clarity alone lacks discernment and can't differentiate mind and wisdom, but it's a suitable basis for one's initial practice (and a necessary one for most).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 29th, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Thamal gyi shepa vs. baby rigpa vs. rigpa (etc.)
Content:
krodha wrote:
Tsoknyi Rinpoche (among other teachers) say that one's mere clarity [cognizance] which registers whether there is stillness or movement [of mind, etc.] is referred to as rig pa. However it isn't rigpa in the sense of rang byung rig pa which arises as knowledge of primordial wisdom [ye shes], that is spoken of in Dzogpa Chenpo.

The former is the mere clarity of mind (encountered in śamatha etc.), Dudjom Lingpa refers to clarity as the 'conventional nature of mind' (as opposed to the true nature of mind i.e. sems nyid). The latter results from recognizing the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The latter rigpa is the true meditation, Tsoknyi Rinpoche goes on to say that we may meditate for an hour and only glimpse our nature (which is the actual meditation) for 3 or 4 seconds. The more we practice the more frequent those flashes or instances will become, the point is to familiarize with that nature and allow those moments to become prolonged.

Jean-Luc Achard says that in this sense, our rigpa is (at first) an impermanent occurrence which fluctuates while on the path. When we no longer fluctuate back and forth between rigpa and mind we are Buddhas.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 21st, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Title: Re: dream yoga and supplements, pills, some questions
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I have  a really hard time maintaining awareness, sometimes I barely get through the visualization before I fall asleep heh. Dreams are more vivid of course...

krodha wrote:
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche says that for building familiarization and clarity with the visualization, you can start with visualizing the thigle at your heart, and then add another stacked on top of the first, then another on top of that etc. So you end up building a chain of stacked thigles which extend up through your throat and head to the crown. Once you get to the crown of the head you can start to subtract the thigles one by one until you finish with the single thigle in the chest. He said this exercise will strengthen your ability to visualize, and the vividness of your clarity [cognizance] will also increase.

Also the body staying completely relaxed helps, and try not to move. You can scan your body piece by piece and totally relax that section as you go along. Tension in the jaw, tension in the throat, wherever there's tension make sure to totally relax.

And don't visualize too intensely, Norbu Rinpoche says the visualization is supposed to help you relax mostly. Keeps you from following discursive thought etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
There are paths where the subject never comes up. I know western Karma Kagyu graduates of 3 year retreat that know nothing of the subject, and some become irate if you try to raise it. They don't want to even hear about it.

krodha wrote:
My Drikung Kagyu teacher is adamant about it, and says buddhanature is profound emptiness... the 'vajra' in Vajrayāna means emptiness, etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Locality of nibbanna
Content:
flowerbudh said:
Might we all be in nirvana already and we just don't know?

asunthatneversets said:
It's more that buddhahood is an innate quality. This is sometimes conveyed with the concept of buddha nature [tathāgatagharbha], we all have inborn Buddha potential because our fundamental nature is primordially pure [as profound emptiness]. The fact that we are ignorant of this is the root of samsara. When we recognize this inborn nature, and dispel our afflictive conditioning, fully integrating with our nature, then that is nirvana [buddhahood / dharmakāya].

dude said:
I agree with you.
On second thought, I'd say that perception of emptiness, while very high, still falls short.

krodha wrote:
A perception [recognition] of emptiness would fall short, the realization of emptiness [dharmakāya] however, is a complete knowledge, and wouldn't fall short. In some traditions that realization can occur in a more refined manner, but ultimately buddhahood is buddhahood. The realization of emptiness is liberation.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 2:31 PM
Title: Re: Locality of nibbanna
Content:
flowerbudh said:
Might we all be in nirvana already and we just don't know?

krodha wrote:
It's more that buddhahood is an innate quality. This is sometimes conveyed with the concept of buddha nature [tathāgatagharbha], we all have inborn Buddha potential because our fundamental nature is primordially pure [as profound emptiness]. The fact that we are ignorant of this is the root of samsara. When we recognize this inborn nature, and dispel our afflictive conditioning, fully integrating with our nature, then that is nirvana [buddhahood / dharmakāya].


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
The only reason I brought up the distinction was because Dante made reference to the gzhi snang concept. Had he advanced the bodhicitta gambit, the discussion would have taken a different turn.

krodha wrote:
Just for the sake of clarity, say the bodhicitta gambit had been referenced; what would be an example of a proper response in that context? Appreciate the tip though, the prospect of varying treatments (of these principles) within the tradition is definitely interesting.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
In order to see the basis as it is, rather than the deluded superimposition (samaropa) we normally perceive, we have to uproot the all-basis, the so called ālaya.
this is causal as frak.

krodha wrote:
"Those who, not understanding this, mistake the ālaya for the dharmakāya, are like blind men wandering in the desert without a guide. Because of their confusion about the vital points of the basis and result, they have come to a standstill on the path that accomplishes buddhahood in one lifetime."
- Jigme Lingpa


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
By 'the mind which seeks to reject views' I meant a mind which deprecates the idea of views altogether and therefore would attempt to abstain from expressing views.

Malcolm said:
All that is required for this is the famed non-affirming negation.

A negation does not necessarily the negator holds a view of his or her own.

krodha wrote:
I just meant that sems is grasping by definition, so sems can't reject its own proliferation in the name of non-grasping, because the very act (of rejection) only accomplishes further grasping.

Grasping and proliferation are only severed via recognition of the mind's nature. If one isn't resting in the nature of mind, the ālaya remains in tact whether views are expressed or not. So might as well express views, but do it skillfully like you said. That's all I was attempting to say.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


tobes said:
I agree with all of this.

Except: a/ For you are clearly rejecting views and accepting what you consider to be apart from (or beyond) views, which is itself a view. This is inescapable. The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection [attachment and aversion], are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional.

I'm simply not doing/advocating that.

krodha wrote:
Ah, I wasn't implying you were advocating for that, apologies if it appeared that way.

tobes said:
All I'm saying is that taking down the Vedanta via Buddhist critique produces, in your words: The mind which seeks to reject views has merely adopted a new view.

If we both agree that there's no real issue with that, then let's move on.

:anjali:

krodha wrote:
By 'the mind which seeks to reject views' I meant a mind which deprecates the idea of views altogether and therefore would attempt to abstain from expressing views. For instance; saying that one should refrain from critiquing Vedanta because it entails lapsing into views, is still promoting a view. Much like the idea of abandoning 'acceptance and rejection' itself entails rejection (and acceptance).

That was my only point; the mind can't escape views, and so the idea of the mind rejecting involvement with critiquing Advaita (in the name of preventing a lapse into views), is itself a lapse into views. So in the context of views, you're damned if you do (critique) and damned if you don't. Only the nature of mind [sems nyid] is free from views and afflictive proliferation, the mind [sems] IS views and afflictive proliferation. There's no sense in trying to curb afflictive fixation and proliferation with the very instrument (the mind) of fixation and afflictive proliferation.

Further, since these issues are resolved by recognizing the nature of mind, the transcendence of views is revealed experientially via that direct insight, and does not come about by rejecting critique or views.

I get that there is value in being mindful of not getting lost in the thicket of views, but if we're aware of that, and understand our situation then (in my opinion) it's okay to explore these differences. Doing so can actually aid in refining our path and creating advantageous (relative) discernment.

In Dzogchen this discernment is called bsam rig, and there is value in cultivating that discrimination, even on a relative level with separating and defining tenet systems and traditions.

Here, Jean-Luc Achard defines bsam rig:
"bsam-rig [knowing discernment] which is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more you knowing discernement is developed)"


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Which school of Buddhism, if any are the closest to Adva
Content:
krodha wrote:
Yes gzhan stong [shentong or zhantong] is the closest to Advaita. Especially Dolpopa's teachings like KonchokZoepa said.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Wow Tobes we posted the same exact sutta at the same exact time......weird.

Also the Samyutta Nikaya is filled with like 30 suttas where the Buddha is teaching that Anatta(not self) is suffering,that which leads to suffering,and it goes as far in one sutta to say that whatever is without a self belongs to mara.

asunthatneversets said:
Actually, the Buddha never once taught that not-self is suffering, and xabir thoroughly refuted this erroneous claim of yours various times due to your inability to traverse your own confirmation biases. Apparently all for naught.

You continue to blatantly misinterpret the sūtras you post as alleged evidence to substantiate your deluded eternalist notions.

Son of Buddha said:
you sure about that?

SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent.... Feeling is impermanent.... Preception is impermanent.... Volitional formations are impermanent.... Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."

P.S. take the Buddhas word for it.
"Sn 22.59 O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction."

the reason why form leads to suffering is because it is not self.
BUT if form were self then............... please finish that sentence with what the Buddha actually said.

krodha wrote:
You are misinterpreting, misrepresenting and misunderstanding these quotes, but if you didn't benefit from the lucid explanation xabir gave you before, then there's no sense in revisiting and readdressing these points now. I enjoy many activities, but repeatedly beating my head against a wall is not one of them.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 5:21 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
tobes said:
I agree that distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted. But what could that possibly be, if not lapsing into a view?

:anjali:

krodha wrote:
Views are unavoidable and implied in dualistic interaction. There is no way for the mind to escape views, the mind is a point of reference by definition. Discursive thought proliferates and feeds off its own momentum, and our reality unfolds.

Our expressed views are merely conventional fabrication, both accurate and inaccurate depending on context... no harm can come from discursive proliferation if you understand the nature of your relative condition.

The cessation of views is accomplished by recognizing the unreality of the mind that suggests them, but departing from views is not something the mind can execute from its own relative vantage point. A cessation of views is impossible in the absence of the wisdom which directly apperceives the emptiness of mind. And so views simply appear, they're extrapolated, and are useful tools. The mind which seeks to reject views has merely adopted a new view.

The negation of (and desire to go beyond) views [acceptance and rejection] is itself a subtle rebirth of the acceptance and rejection dichotomy. For you are clearly rejecting views and accepting what you consider to be apart from (or beyond) views, which is itself a view. This is inescapable. The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection [attachment and aversion], are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional.

So express your views loud and proud, and if you lapse into a view then so be it.

"All discursive thoughts are emptiness, and the observer of emptiness is discursive thought. Emptiness does not destroy discursive thought, and discursive thought does not obstruct emptiness."
- Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 4:17 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Wow Tobes we posted the same exact sutta at the same exact time......weird.

Also the Samyutta Nikaya is filled with like 30 suttas where the Buddha is teaching that Anatta(not self) is suffering,that which leads to suffering,and it goes as far in one sutta to say that whatever is without a self belongs to mara.

krodha wrote:
Actually, the Buddha never once taught that not-self is suffering, and xabir thoroughly refuted this erroneous claim of yours various times due to your inability to traverse your own confirmation biases. Apparently all for naught.

You continue to blatantly misinterpret the sūtras you post as alleged evidence to substantiate your deluded eternalist notions.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
futerko said:
...It seems that although the difference  it seems to me that the implications for practice are quite far reaching.

asunthatneversets said:
The Self [Brahman] of Advaita essentially fortifies and reinforces the personal self, and so (according to the buddhadharma) it fails to transcend samsara. Shakyamuni realized Brahman and found that it did not match the 'liberation free of birth and death' he had heard of, so he pressed on and actualized dharmakāya.

tobes said:
Surely this lapses into the view that 'the other team' has the wrong view.


krodha wrote:
The Dzogchen tantras refute Advaita by name. Shakyamuni's doctrine of anātman is a direct response to the ātman/Brahman of Vedanta.

It surely isn't as petty as 'lapsing into a view that the other team has it wrong', but the distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 11:32 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
futerko said:
...It seems that although the difference  it seems to me that the implications for practice are quite far reaching.

krodha wrote:
The Self [Brahman] of Advaita essentially fortifies and reinforces the personal self, and so (according to the buddhadharma) it fails to transcend samsara. Shakyamuni realized Brahman and found that it did not match the 'liberation free of birth and death' he had heard of, so he pressed on and actualized dharmakāya.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

asunthatneversets said:
It would be unfamiliar to them though, because for the Advaitin, cit is inherently existent and is therefore independent of causes and conditions.

dzogchungpa said:
I think it would be familiar to them, they would just disagree with the Buddhists.

krodha wrote:
If they agreed they would be a proponent of the dharma. This is the defining principle which separates the two traditions.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

krodha wrote:
It would be unfamiliar to them though, because for the Advaitin, cit is inherently existent and is therefore independent of causes and conditions.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 1:37 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
brendan said:
It is suppose to be the path that leads to the cessation of suffering...not the path of claims and free will.

krodha wrote:
Not sure what claims and free will have to do with anything, but ok.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 12:29 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
brendan said:
Yes but Upaya is still stained due to there still being suffering.

To claim otherwise seems like madness.

asunthatneversets said:
Upāya is the dharma, it is the skillful means set forth by the Buddhas. Your upāya is complimented by prajñā, which comes with skillful application of the teachings.

brendan said:
On paper.

krodha wrote:
In practice. I mean, even on paper it makes sense. As a beginner, some initial confidence (even 'faith') is surely required, but the point is to apply the teaching received from a qualified guru. The guru has perfected the two accumulations [upāya and prajñā] and so s/he can properly evaluate your needs and effectively discern the best route for you. Then within the praxis itself upāya is required on your part, this is where a relationship with the teacher comes into play.

We all have varying capacities, so the means vary as well, and you therefore initially rely on the wisdom of the master. In time, as your own wisdom flowers, prajñā reveals the innermost guru [dharmakāya] (unless you are of high acumen and recognized vidyā via introduction, then you're naturally endowed with discernment on the outset).

Prajñā [shes rab] and vidyā [rig pa] are nearly synonymous.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
brendan said:
Yes but Upaya is still stained due to there still being suffering.

To claim otherwise seems like madness.

krodha wrote:
Upāya is the dharma, it is the skillful means set forth by the Buddhas. Your upāya is complimented by prajñā, which comes with skillful application of the teachings.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
'Permanent' and 'unchanging' in the buddhadharma, are different from 'permanent' and 'unchanging' in Hindu Vedanta etc.

Buddhahood is 'permanent' in that it's irreversible. Emptiness is 'permanent' and 'unchanging' because it is non-arising. That which is non-arisen is unborn, what does not originate does not cease, ergo the terms 'permanent' and 'unchanging' are sometimes used to describe dharmakāya.

Dharmakāya is nothing like Brahman.

Anders said:
Come now. It's a lot like Brahman, which is why they are so often compared.

Which is not to say there or not more or less subtle differences. But they obviously have a great many strong similarities.

krodha wrote:
Not even close to Brahman.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 10:56 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
xabir said:
According to Malcolm, KTGR had to concede in a debate with him in the end that Shentong is no different from Advaita except its emphasis on Buddhahood.

monktastic said:
Wonderful! If KTGR does not (or cannot) distinguish his own view from that of Advaita (except for its emphasis on Buddhahood), that's good enough for me. It suggests to me that not everyone with realization uses the same words to describe "it."

Edit: if they did, I'd begin to harbor deep suspicions about its purported complete ineffability.

krodha wrote:
However the implications of that is the gzhan stong view deviates from the general view of the Buddhadharma. Meaning from the perspective of teachings like Dzogchen, Madhyamaka, etc., gzhan stong errs into an extreme view.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 9:12 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
'Permanent' and 'unchanging' in the buddhadharma, are different from 'permanent' and 'unchanging' in Hindu Vedanta etc.

Buddhahood is 'permanent' in that it's irreversible. Emptiness is 'permanent' and 'unchanging' because it is non-arising. That which is non-arisen is unborn, what does not originate does not cease, ergo the terms 'permanent' and 'unchanging' are sometimes used to describe dharmakāya.

Dharmakāya is nothing like Brahman.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Tweaked this subtly from a previous post on a different forum, apologies for the length, but it addresses the differences.

-------------

By way of a friend I came across this quote by Trungpa Rinpoche from his book 'Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism', which discusses the nature of the 'supreme absolute being' that is referenced by Ramana Maharshi and other Advaitins. From a Dzogchen (and dharmic) perspective, that supreme absolute being is essentially the pinnacle of samsara, which means it's not a pinnacle at all but is merely a relative position in the wheel of beginningless cyclical existence. Trungpa explains, this 'supreme absolute being' is actually a formless god realm, and due to it's implications it is a 'gigantic beast'. It is nothing like the buddha's dharmakāya.

Quoting my friend Robert who shared this; "I should add (as a disclaimer) that Chogyam Trungpa uses here a metaphor of a monkey trapped in Samsara and transmigrating and being reborn in various realms." Here's the quote:

"Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual plea­sures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concen­tration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely men­tal pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limit­less space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is com­pletely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast. 

Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the bound­ary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain."
- Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche

Ramana Maharshi is referring to the 'Self' (i.e. Brahman i.e. Universal Self) when he says 'supreme absolute being', and so Trungpa Rinpoche is discussing how this state is essentially just super-sizing the present 'ego' (or relative samsaric self) so that it becomes eternal and changeless. Instead of liberation, this only serves to reify and fortify the self. The Brahman is defined as 'existence [sat], consciousness [cit], bliss [ananda]', Trungpa specifically references the idea of 'limitless consciousness' and explores how the 'empire of ego is completely extended', implying that our sense of existent selfhood expands to the point that it transcends the usual six realms of existence and enters the realm of the formless gods. He then specifically cites the practice of 'neti-neti' [not this, not that] which is employed in both samkhya and adviata praxes in order to arrive at the knowledge of Brahman (supreme absolute being).

Both Dzogchen and Buddhism in general adamantly reject the notion of a supreme absolute being:

"Mahamati: Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as 'A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable'.

The Bhagavan replied:
'Mahamati, my teaching of tathagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words 'emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless', etc. as tathagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathagatagarbha. Mahamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.'"

For the non-buddhists who propagate the view of a supreme absolute being i.e. Self as Brahman, they define that Self as pure consciousness [cit] which is eternally existent 'being' [sat]. Dzogchen and Buddhism see both consciousness and existence as symptoms of ignorance. For Dzogchen, both consciousness [cit] and existence [sat] are byproducts of afflictive dependent origination which arise as a result of the non-recognition of the basis [skt. ṣthiti/sthāna, tib. gzhi], and both are therefore relegated to the ālaya [tib. kun gzhi]:

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" 
- Anatta-lakkhana Sutta

Dzogchen defines six wrong views which are attributed to the basis [gzhi]... the third negates the Self of the non-buddhist tirthikas: "Concerning the belief that it is definite: If that were the case, change would be impossible. The fault would be that the defilement of ignorance could not be purified. If the basis were exclusively unchanging, then it would necessarily be the same as asserting a permanent self."

Longchenpa states:
"The final [turning] for the sake of those who had reached fulfillment and who were of sharpest capacity taught the nature of all that is knowable, as it really is. As such, it bears to similarity to the Self of the Hindu heretics because these people in their ignorance speak of a 'Self' that does not actually exist, being a mere imputation superimposed on reality."

Since the Self of the non-buddhist paths is said to be inherently existent, it also advocates svabhāva, a view which is seen as illogical and impossible in the eyes of the buddhadharma:

"Svabhāva is by definition the subject of contradictory ascriptions. If it exists, it must belong to an existent entity, which means that it must be conditioned, dependent on other entities, and possessed of causes. But a svabhāva is by definition unconditioned, not dependent on other entities, and not caused. Thus the existence of a svabhāva is impossible."
- Nāgārjuna

Dzogchen upholds a view of niḥsvabhāva, because ka dag [the original purity of the basis] forbids svabhāva. Even though (per Malcolm), ka dag is itself "termed ngo bo, or svabhāva; while lhun grub is termed prakriti or rang bzhin" the difference being that ka dag signifies an empty essence, unlike the svabhāva championed by non-buddhists.

Svabhāva (along with abhāva etc.) is refuted using the same logic employed by Madhyamaka, a freedom from extremes demonstrated succinctly via Catuṣkoṭi Tetralemma:

"The natural state of the basis is free from elaboration [extremes]:
It is not existent - even the conquerors cannot see it;
It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana;
It is not both or neither - it goes beyond being an object of speech..."
- Jigme Lingpa

"The mandala is completed in the nonconceptual path, 
freeing the bonds of proliferation of thoughts and so on,
free from the empty phenomena of intentions and so on,
beyond being and nonbeing, negative and positive objects, and so on,
liberated from phenomena that fall into an extreme."
-- Rigpa Rangshar Tantra [Per Malcolm]


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Ancient Buddhas
Content:
catmoon said:
I laud your efforts to combat the pseudo-thought of conspiracy theorists, it really needs to be done, but it has to be done accurately.

krodha wrote:
If this is directed towards my interaction with PadmaVonSamba then I have to argue that no conspiracy theory or pseudo-thought has been presented. All that has occurred is questioning the presently accepted model surrounding the scientific evidence we have. If that's pseudo-thought, then science might as well throw in the towel now.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 13th, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Title: Re: Ancient Buddhas
Content:
krodha wrote:
All I'm saying is the reigning paradigm isn't bullet proof, and there is continually new evidence appearing which contradicts it.

I also never said the evidence itself is associated with belief, though the model erected around the evidence surely is.

My point with the length in lifespan, was merely to say that 'if' conditions allowed, it may be possible. That is all. You seem to be extrapolating that I'm asserting that these theories are indeed flawless and true, I am not. I haven't made any definitive claims, you are the only one guilty of that.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 13th, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Title: Re: Ancient Buddhas
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Evolution is a fact.

krodha wrote:
No one has questioned evolution. Only the validity of the reigning model.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 13th, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Title: Re: Ancient Buddhas
Content:
ClearblueSky said:
I thought you were implying bigger= longer lifespan, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you on that part. What were you implying if not that, relating to the whole Kasyapa Buddha/human lifespan thing?

krodha wrote:
The point, was that if conditions allowed an organism to be larger in scale, it isn't far fetched to theorize that conditions can allow for a lengthened life span. I'm not suggesting lifespans of thousands of years is or ever was possible.

ClearblueSky said:
And you are bringing up these things about secret 3 million year old human skeletons in coal

krodha wrote:
Well, they surely aren't secret, you can read about them if you have the interest.

ClearblueSky said:
"blindly following darwin", "Forbidden Archeology" conspiracies, and talk about humans walking around 2 billion years ago. There's not much need to even point out that there's no even remotely accepted scientific basis to any of that

krodha wrote:
Well of course, welcome to science, the fraternity of paradigms. The reigning paradigm is what flies, all else is rejected. Very much like a belief system.

ClearblueSky said:
and taking those things and saying "Darwin's is just another theory too" is the same reason I don't really bother engaging creationists that believe the earth is 6,000 years old in a debate.

krodha wrote:
Yes, god forbid systems of belief are peddled and promulgated. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

ClearblueSky said:
They are not both just theories, one is largely accepted science with heaps of evidence, the other is fringe belief/ or ancient belief.

krodha wrote:
Largely accepted science yes, heaps of evidence is another thing though... sparse evidence to piece together a theory with holes in it, is more like it. Even today scientists are unsure how the leap to modern man took place, various theories are posited in that regard. Even that hallucinogens may have played a role; 'the stoned ape theory', for example. You would be hard pressed to declare that there is any unassailable evidence to back up the reigning theory regarding the origins of mankind. All you have is a paradigm you have been presented, and you ate it up hook, line and sinker.

Year by year there are various discoveries which challenge the accepted paradigm, yet due to peer pressure, many scientists do not want to speak out in favor of the 'fringe' evidence for fear they will lose their credibility, labeled quacks and charlatans by people just like you, who merely tow the party line and regurgitate shit you've been force fed.

Göbekli Tepe for example, surely challenges the extant paradigm in regards to what man was capable of during that era [epipaleolithic]. Scientists know today that there has been major earth events which have drastically changed the topography and climates of the planet. There is strong evidence that Antartica used to be a rainforest, and there have even been one or two maps discovered which show Antartica as a dry and/or tropical climate. Pole shifts being the explanation for how the drastic climate changes came about. So no, our history is far from certain. If you find certainty in the model you precribe to, then you are choosing to believe that a model and theory is correct, and are therefore no better than the Creationists you ignorantly cast aspersions at.

ClearblueSky said:
It's not just updated science. Ancient beliefs, beautiful as many are, just weren't evidence-based in the way we'd consider "science" today, and it's not really an accurate comparison.

krodha wrote:
And likewise, the models of reality being uncovered with quantum mechanics and so on is something which would have been considered equally non-evidence based, not too long ago. Science is a constant shift in paradigm, yet the reigning paradigm will always linger, the fact that children are still taught in school that everything is made of atoms being a prime example. It has been said, and it's undoubtably true, that you can measure scientific progress funeral by funeral.

ClearblueSky said:
Regardless, it would at least be helpful if you could provide the source to that quote, so we can see what you are quoting from.

krodha wrote:
That quote is from Michael Cremo, but there are numerous individuals like him with intersting theories and discoveries. I enjoy Graham Hancock and others of that ilk as well. Unfortunately nothing it appears you would be interested in, after all, we wouldn't want to pry and question things now would we?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 12th, 2013 at 2:31 PM
Title: Re: Ancient Buddhas
Content:
krodha wrote:
Now, I'm not saying this is indeed factual or true, but I see no issue with remaining open to the possibility, and entertaining the theory. After all, Darwin's model is simply a theory as well:

"Just a dozen years after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, growing numbers of scientists and other educated persons considered it impossible, indeed laughable, to suppose that humans were anything other than the modified descendants of an ancestral line of apelike creatures.

According to Darwinists, the first undisputed fossil evidence for life on earth goes back about 2 billion years. They say the first apes and monkeys appeared about 40-50 million years ago. The first ape-men (called Australopithecus) appeared about 4 million years ago. These were followed by other apemen called Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Neanderthal man. The first human beings of modern type (Homo sapiens sapiens) appeared only 100,000 or 200,000 years ago. Civilization, according to modern scientists, is less than 10,000 years old. 

Those who blindly follow Darwin's ideas on human evolution do not see the pattern of suppression inherent in scientific investigation. However, Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson of the Bhaktivedanta Institute investigated hundreds of scientific reports showing that humans or near humans were living millions of years ago in the Pliocene, Miocene, or earlier periods. 

This evidence was not regarded as anomalous by the scientists who introduced it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, since they were contemplating theories of human origins that were compatible with this evidence. Then, with the development of the modern theory that humans like ourselves evolved within the past 200,000 years in the Late Pleistocene, this evidence became highly unacceptable, and it vanished from sight. 

Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race presents a representative sample of this anomalous evidence suggesting that humans have been on the earth for millions of years, just as the ancient Sanskrit writings of the Vedic literatures describe. The Vedic histories inform us that humans have existed since the beginning of the day of Brahma, about 2 billion years ago. 

Cremo and Thompson conclude that even the conventionally accepted evidence does not offer a cohesive picture of the missing link; instead, the multiplicity of proposed evolutionary linkages among the hominids in Africa creates a very confusing scheme of human evolution. They call for a drastic revision of the now-dominant assumptions about human origins."


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 12th, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Title: Re: Ancient Buddhas
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Semi off topic but I know that due to differences in atmospheric pressure, life forms used to be much larger in scale. There's a scientist who has recreated the atmospheric conditions for prehistoric fish in a modern day fish tank. The fish grew nearly 2 or 3 times the size of modern fish (of the same species) living in present day conditions.

So perhaps it's not too far off base to theorize that lifespans may be longer, given the conditions allow.

ClearblueSky said:
Bigger does not= longer lifespan. Elephants live 60 years, clams can live 400 years. I think that if anyone believes that a human being has literally lived for 20,000 years, that human beings existed more than about a 200,000 years ago (and didn't evolve from similar species), or that the planet earth was ever literally layed out as described in Buddhist cosmology, they've got a lot more views they need to work on than just Buddhist practice. Believing in modern science to a practical degree is not a "limited view", but believing that these things have to literally be true to keep ones faith is a rather limited view.

krodha wrote:
Two straw man arguments there; (i) I never suggested 'bigger' implies a longer life span, and (ii) I never suggested one should literally prescribe to any views.

Interestingly and allegedly, there has been an in tact modern human skeleton found in a 3 million year old coal deposit, among other anomalies of that nature. Some theorize that the human race is far, far more ancient than modern science chooses to believe, but that's a different topic.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 11th, 2013 at 1:29 PM
Title: Re: Ancient Buddhas
Content:
krodha wrote:
Semi off topic but I know that due to differences in atmospheric pressure, life forms used to be much larger in scale. There's a scientist who has recreated the atmospheric conditions for prehistoric fish in a modern day fish tank. The fish grew nearly 2 or 3 times the size of modern fish (of the same species) living in present day conditions.

So perhaps it's not too far off base to theorize that lifespans may be longer, given the conditions allow.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 10th, 2013 at 2:46 PM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
At any rate, this Bentinho character rips off Dzogpa Chenpo,

xabir said:
Does he?

He's teaching his own version of neo-Advaita, never heard of him discussing anything about Dzogchen but I might be wrong.

krodha wrote:
Not sure if he still does, but he used to teach his own interpretation of the three kāyas, it was quite blatant. He doesn't mention Dzogchen at all that's why it's essentially reinterpreting and repackaging it. He was accused of this by others early on in his career, perhaps he abandoned that aspect of his teaching due to that, I'm not sure. But I agree his teaching is his own version of neo-advaita, beyond that I'm unfamiliar with him, apart from hearing of his eccentric behavior as of late.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 10th, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
At any rate, this Bentinho character rips off Dzogpa Chenpo, and in the end, of course, doesn't even teach Dzogpa Chenpo.

I'd go with Chatral Rinpoche's advice on this, of his 7 guidelines in one of his letters, number 4 is:

4. Do not sell out Dzogpa Chenpo under different pretext for your own personal benefit.

And number 6:
6. Do not cheat others in the name of Dzogpa Chenpo by giving initiations or teachings which you have never received from a legitimate high lama or Guru and [have] not done practice by yourself.

Adamantine said:
Thanks sun, can you provide us with the entire list please?

krodha wrote:
Declaration:

a) I wish to say a few important guidelines with regard to misuse of my humble name by different Buddhist monks, yogis, and lamas – those who are either visiting Taiwan or [have] settled down in southeast Asia in different countries despite of my repeated appeal to everyone. It is a matter of big surprise for me that several Buddhist Lamas whom I have never even met in my lifetime nor never given them any teachings, are also using my humble name continuously for their personal monetary benefit which is an extreme matter of shame and a big fraud. Wearing monk’s robes, cheating, and misleading lay people are a serious crime and breaks all Buddha’s principal Vows. [You are] sowing serious [negative] Karma for yourself and at the same time ruining Buddhism. I feel sorry for such gross negative activities by [these] Buddhist lamas, khenpos, yogis, and monks residing abroad. I strongly object to those who are using my name directly or indirectly by any means.

My constant guidelines and advice to all persons [whether he is a] reincarnated lama, yogi, khenpo or ordinary monk, with whom I happen to meet from day to day, are always same and are [stated] below:

1. If you are a serious Buddhist student and Dzogpa Chenpo (Dzogchen) practicitioners, one should spend your life in retreat with minimum comfort and giving up all luxuries of attachment.
 
2. Do not waste your time in touring all foreign countries including Taiwan – [this] is fruitless.

3. Do not beg for donations [using] different excuses such as construction of a big monastery, stupa, zangdokpalri, or bumtsog; big offerings; or setting up a new Buddhist center.

4. Do not sell out Dzogpa Chenpo under different pretext for your own personal benefit.

5. Always be humble and do not try to expose yourself in front of others even though you may have [some] knowledge [of] Buddhism.

6. Do not cheat others in the name of Dzogpa Chenpo by giving initiations or teachings which you have never received from a legitimate high lama or Guru and [have] not done practice by yourself.

7. Finally, I myself never have [even the] slightest desire to visit any foreign country nor have I any specific reason [to do so].

b. In the past, I have experienced several occasions, that despite my unwillingness and objection, reincarnate lamas, yogis, khenpos and monks who have come to see me are taking photographs with me by force under different pretexts. Due to electronic supremacy, people are coming with different types of electronic equipment so as to record my voice or photograph me, which are not easy to detect by people of my age.

c. Hence, I [hereby] notify all the Buddhist followers all over the world, do not, I repeat, do not believe the person who is possessing such photographs or are making false claims that he or she is my student in the past or present. Please do not believe [them] on just showing a photograph, video, [or others items with me]. Therefore, I, the undersigned with full consent, reject such types of false claims made by different Buddhist centers, monasteries, institutes, reincarnate lamas, khenpos, yogis, and ordinary monks henceforth.

In conclusion, once again, I sincerely appeal to all Buddhist followers all over the world and Buddhist Centers including the people who are taking interest in Buddhism religion; kindly take note of my above cited humble declaration and suggestions. After seeing this article in newspapers, I hope [that] everyone would clearly understand me and my personal opinion hereafter.

Dated April 19, 2007

Thanking you,

Declaration by Chatral Sangay Dorje


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 10th, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
krodha wrote:
At any rate, this Bentinho character rips off Dzogpa Chenpo, and in the end, of course, doesn't even teach Dzogpa Chenpo.

I'd go with Chatral Rinpoche's advice on this, of his 7 guidelines in one of his letters, number 4 is:

4. Do not sell out Dzogpa Chenpo under different pretext for your own personal benefit.

And number 6:
6. Do not cheat others in the name of Dzogpa Chenpo by giving initiations or teachings which you have never received from a legitimate high lama or Guru and [have] not done practice by yourself.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 9th, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Title: Re: Tattoos on the chakras
Content:
krodha wrote:
I have a photo somewhere of a man who manifested a hung/hum symbol on his body strictly through practice and visualization. I'll post it when I can. It's obviously not a perfect hum symbol, but you can tell that's what it is.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 9th, 2013 at 8:32 AM
Title: Re: Tattoos on the chakras
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'm covered in tattoos, they're no big deal to me but probably depends on the individual. Not sure about the dharma symbols, I know the Japanese leave the central area of their torso (usually associated with the central channel) un-tattooed so their traditional tattoo body suits resemble a jacket. Whether that has to do with the chakras or not I'm not sure, but I'd imagine it does.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: Isn't Karma extrapolation?
Content:
Alfredo said:
The oath you swear may be voluntary, but whether the universe rewards or punishes you for particular classes of action is supposed to be hard-wired.

krodha wrote:
It is common to see karma as a form of universal retribution, and I think this is where your question of ethics etc., is coming from. Karma isn't necessarily that though, it's true application is in our moment to moment interaction with the unfolding of experience. The engrained habits which force us to relate to ourselves and the world in a certain way, and the positing of a self and world in general.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Legalized Marijuana - will you smoke it?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The only reason it was illegal in the first place is because William Randolph Hearst ran a smear campaign against hemp. Hemp was a growing industry which was going to be problematic for his cotton and paper businesses. Marijuana is actually a weed which grows in Mexico which is completely unrelated to hemp, they stole the name and labeled hemp 'marijuana' in order to make it sound foreign and potentially dangerous. Cannabis has never killed anyone, while alcohol and tobacco kill countless people every year. The whole thing is political. Big pharma doesn't want to see cannabis legalized because it can treat various ailments they claim to treat by peddling their garbage pharmaceuticals.

conebeckham said:
Well....I think Hemp is Cannabis.  There are two basic varieties, Indica and Sativa.   Whether it's a weed that grows wild, or a cultivated crop for fiber, or for psychoactive uses, doesn't matter.

Grass may not directly kill anyone...but definitely it has impaired the judgement of folks who have committed crimes as a result.  Like driving while intoxicated--and yes, I'd rather folks drive stoned than drunk, I'd much rather they didn't drive at all when intoxicated.

Whether or not it's legal is not really an issue for me, frankly.  The "morality" of intoxicants isn't even an issue.  It's the effects, for me.  The stuff these days is so unbalanced compared to the stuff that was around 25 years ago....with all the manipulation to boost THC content and the other psychoactive compounds involved no longer matter.  It makes me anxious, heart rate goes up, mind appears to be racing, and in general it's not pleasant at all.  The only positive thing I continue to maintain about it is that I do believe music can be "heard" and "felt" differently.....it gives you a different perspective.  But I think it's the antithesis of a meditation aid.  for me.

Effects on others apparently are widely divergent!

krodha wrote:
Right I wasn't implying hemp was different than cannabis. And you're right anything can be abused and misused, but the dangers of alcohol and tobacco are far more prevalent. I'm just saying the logic doesn't add up. If marijuana is illegal, alcohol and tobacco should be illegal, but of course that would never happen, there's big business behind alcohol and tobacco. And big business behind 'the war on drugs'.

I don't smoke weed or tobacco (or anything at all) and I don't drink, but in my opinion marijuana is far less dangerous and actually has potential health benefits. The whole thing just reeks of economic and political b.s.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Legalized Marijuana - will you smoke it?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The only reason it was illegal in the first place is because William Randolph Hearst ran a smear campaign against hemp. Hemp was a growing industry which was going to be problematic for his cotton and paper businesses. Marijuana is actually a weed which grows in Mexico which is completely unrelated to hemp, they stole the name and labeled hemp 'marijuana' in order to make it sound foreign and potentially dangerous. Cannabis has never killed anyone, while alcohol and tobacco kill countless people every year. The whole thing is political. Big pharma doesn't want to see cannabis legalized because it can treat various ailments they claim to treat by peddling their garbage pharmaceuticals.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: labelling of GMO foods
Content:
krodha wrote:
Another issue with growing your own food is that Monsanto has their own patented seeds, which are genetically modified to be resistant to their own pesticide 'round-up'. They also have genetically modified certain seeds to contain a killswitch that triggers after a season or two and renders the seed unable to germinate. So farmers are forced to buy new seeds every season instead of storing seeds. These corporations are insane.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 7th, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Title: Re: Isn't Karma extrapolation?
Content:
Alfredo said:
Karma is just another pan-Indic supernatural belief for which no good evidence exists. ("Like comes from like" is quite vague, and unfortunately representative of the quality of Buddhist argument in favor of an afterlife.) It is only an "inference" in the sense that "fairies make the flowers grow" is an inference.

krodha wrote:
You don't seem to understand what karma is.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 7th, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Title: Re: Isn't Karma extrapolation?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Your karma is simply your habitual tendencies and propensities which cause a dualistic interaction with experience to arise.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 7th, 2013 at 10:28 AM
Title: Re: labelling of GMO foods
Content:
krodha wrote:
What's also wild is Fox News actually aired a critical piece on GMOs and their dangers this past week.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 7th, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Title: Re: labelling of GMO foods
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
By the way, Monsanto and co. is not even capitalism, it's corporatocracy (well we could call it crony-capitalism or monopoly-capitalism, but I think corporatocracy is more accurate; and that's another topic though).

krodha wrote:
Agreed, it's corporatism, straight up!


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 7th, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Title: Re: labelling of GMO foods
Content:
krodha wrote:
Unbelievable that they've been able to defeat this yet again.

http://www.infowars.com/monsanto-22-mil-propaganda-defeats-monumental-gmo-labeling-bill/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/washington-state-voters-reject-gmo-labeing/3450705/

Monsanto’s massive campaign to defeat your very right to know what’s in your food has been backed by over $22 million in corporate funding from sources like DuPont and Bayer, but the reality is that these corrupt corporate monopolies are fighting just to survive within the world’s food supply.
Perhaps most amazing to me is the fact that just $550 of the $22 million donated to fighting the GMO labeling initiative actually came from Washington citizens. To put that into perspective, that’s around .0025% of the total finances. The rest, actually came from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience — the same corporations who are actively dominating the food supply with all forms of genetically modified varieties.
Monsanto right now is backed against a corner like a stray animal, fighting with mass amounts of the almighty dollar in order to survive for just a few moments longer. Even the mainstream media now has been forced to reveal Monsanto’s ugly head in light of the Washington voting initiative.
Overall, it is not time to lose morale in the fight for the reclamation of our food, but instead to voice another rallying cry as the beast that is Monsanto begins to truly show how desperate it really is.
—-
Anthony Gucciardi is the acting Editor and Founder of alternative news website Storyleak.com, as well as the Founder of the third largest natural health website in the world, NaturalSociety.com. He is also a news media personality and analyst who has been featured on top news, radio, and television organizations including Drudge Report, Michael Savage’s Savage Nation, Coast to Coast AM, and RT.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 28th, 2013 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Scary movies and exorcism discussion...
Content:
padma norbu said:
It would be interesting to see a movie about a Buddhist exorcism. Are there any?

krodha wrote:
There's a documentary about the Dalai Lama's oracle, seems like that would be the closest you'd get to a Buddhist possession or exorcism type film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nechung_Oracle


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 28th, 2013 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Scary movies and exorcism discussion...
Content:
krodha wrote:
Last night I watched the 'Ghost Adventures' 100th episode which took place in the house the film 'The Exorcist' was based on... it was pretty good. Made me wonder the same thing though, what class of being would these 'demons' be?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 26th, 2013 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: i need a girlfriend/wife
Content:
krodha wrote:
There's no necessity to be a monk.

But if you are interested in being part of a structured community which is akin to being a monk, there are tantric [vajrayāna] practitioners called ngakpas [sngags pa], which do marry and are even encouraged to have a sang yum. Ngakpas will even grow their hair long to express a difference between themselves and the traditional monastic lifestyle and requirements. So there are options.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 24th, 2013 at 8:47 AM
Title: Re: Path of Gods and Men
Content:
philji said:
My understanding is that the path of gods and men is the first turning of the wheel. The Hinayana path as taught by the Buddha leading to freedom from suffering.

krodha wrote:
Hinayāna is the teaching of the Buddha, so it isn't part of the vehicle of gods and man. The vehicle of gods and man is a designation which is used to classify any path which isn't the buddhadharma. Traditions such as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam etc. are examples of worldly paths, they cannot lead one out of samsara, and are therefore part of the vehicle of gods and man.

As for other relative, non-religious pursuits being classified under the vehicle of gods and man, I'm not sure.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013 at 12:55 PM
Title: Re: What sort of practice are laypeople capable of accomplis
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
and i could imagine that shamatha is useful accomplishment in dzogchen also. the natural state will remain only as a glimpse, glimpse , glimpse , glimpse since the mind is restless and thus not able to concentrate.

krodha wrote:
Very true, Malcolm shared this some time ago:

Whether you are following Dzogchen or Mahamudra, and regardless of your intellectual understanding, your meditation should have, at base, the following characteristics:

Prthvi -- physical ease
Sukha -- mental joy
Ekagraha -- one-pointedness
Vitarka -- initial engagement
Vicara -- sustained engagement 

If any of these is missing, you have not even achieved perfect śamatha regardless of whether or not you are using an external object, the breath or even the nature of the mind. 
...
Even in Dzogchen the five mental factors I mentioned are key without which you are really not going to make any progress.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: NATURAL MIND RIGPA VASTNESS
Content:
Karma Tashi G. said:
When I was a young boy, I remember looking up at the sky from a hillside and my eyes trying to bore through the sky like a drill!  Later I learned this was an official practice!  Maybe most official practice teachings is based on young boy experiences?

I'm just really guessing!

KTG

krodha wrote:
A forceful śamatha practice of that nature is a common aspect of the A'Tri (sometimes spelled A-Khrid) system in Bönpo Dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: The Six Realms
Content:
flowerbudh said:
Above humans are the devas... I was under the impression that Buddhists don't believe in gods. Help?

krodha wrote:
The six realms are quite multifaceted in meaning and application. In the dharma there is always an exoteric or outward appearance and meaning, and an esoteric or inner meaning, some even add a third 'secret' meaning to certain concepts. At any rate though, one way to look at the realms, is as states of mind. So for instance; the god realm would be one of happiness or sheer elation, ease, luxury, etc. what most people would consider the high end of the spectrum as far as life experiences and circumstances go. The dharma is saying that even those who live in the lap of luxury, and have no worries, immense fortune or fame etc. are still caught in samsara.

In contrast you have the realm of the pretas or hungry ghosts. They represent greed. Their small mouths and insatiable appetites mean that they're never satisfied, and always want more and more. So this describes a state of mind that we can fall victim to. Likewise the asura realm represents extreme anger and wrath, sometimes jealousy. The animal realm represents torpor or ignorance. The human realm represents a state of equanimity or indifference, sometimes desire. The hell realm represents states of immense suffering.

So these are all ways to describe our condition as sentient beings, or in our case; the human condition.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Title: Re: My parents against my beliefs
Content:
krodha wrote:
The Tibetan Yungdrung Bön Institute is in Miami:

353 W 47th St.
Miami Beach, FL 33140

I'm sure they have programs where you can learn a great deal about these systems and traditions.

I believe Lama Khemsar Rinpoche presides over that institute though, his demeanor is quite austere (i.e. he doesn't f#@k around) so that is a possible avenue, but only if you're serious about the teachings.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
Sherab said:
Okay, let's try this then:

"Emptiness means nothing exists inherently."

Therefore:

Any thing that exists must exist because of dependencies.

What does liberation means than?

If liberation means to be free from dependencies, then liberation is non-existence since any form of existence requires dependencies.

If liberation does not mean to be free from dependencies, then the state of liberation will always be depending on 'something else'. Therefore if that 'something else' change, then the state of liberation will change. This means that there is no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable. If there can be no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable, how can that state be called a state of liberation?

This is just to illustrate my point that all debates issue using terms such as existent and non-existent that have mutually exclusive meaning, can never come to a resolution because when you push the argument to its logical conclusion, you will end up with one extreme or another. To say that emptiness means nothing exists inherently does not provide an escape from this problem of using words with mutually exclusive meaning.

krodha wrote:
Nothing exists because of dependencies. Dependent origination is not origination. Conventional existence is merely a convention. Therefore liberation is freedom from all four extremes.

"Those who perceive existents, non-existents, 
inherent existence or dependent existence 
do not see the truth of the Buddha's teaching."
- Nāgārjuna


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
Sherab said:
Nothing exists inherently.
Nothing exists inherently.  Nothing exists in and of itself.  Nothing exists by its own power.  (They all have the same meaning.)

Therefore:

Any thing that exists must exist in dependence on something other than itself.

krodha wrote:
There is no 'itself' in dependent origination. There is nothing apart from, created by, or underlying the assumed dependencies. On top of that, the dependencies themselves are only such because the deluded mind draws associations and decides there is allegiance between the characteristics in question. The supposed 'thing' is a conventional designation which is inferred onto a certain collection of appearances which are deemed objective due to falling victim to the notion of a subject in the first place. The entire house of cards is a fallacy.

Sherab said:
What does liberation means than?

If liberation means to be free from existence, then liberation = non-existence.

krodha wrote:
Not at all. You aren't understanding how this works and are assuming that there is indeed inherent existence. There is nothing which inherently exists, therefore there is no non-existence, both or neither.

Sherab said:
If liberation does not mean to be free from existence, then the state of liberation will always be a state that depends on something else.  Therefore if that something else change, then the state of liberation will change.  This means that there is no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable. If there can be no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable, how can that state be called a state of liberation?

krodha wrote:
Liberation means a freedom from ignorance [avidyā] and the various implications of ignorance; such as deluded notions of existence, non-existence, both and neither. Buddhahood is an innate quality, it only becomes obscured by affliction. Why is it an innate quality? Because there is nothing which isn't empty. Empty things are empty by nature, therefore emptiness is always already implied, we simply don't see it due to being caught up in ignorance.

Your line of reasoning is faulty because it's predicated on a false premise.

Sherab said:
This is just to illustrate my point that all debates issue using mutually exclusive terms such as existent and non-existent, whether directly or indirectly, can never come to a resolution because when you push the argument to its logical conclusion, you will end up with one extreme or another.  To come to a resolution intellectually, you will need to think using an approach that does not need to use such mutually exclusive terms.  The other approach for resolution is to have direct realization.

krodha wrote:
Really this just illustrates that you don't understand dependent origination or emptiness. There is no establishment of mutual exclusivity, existence and non-existence are figments of delusion, and so there's no way they obstruct a resolution. As for direct realization being a resolution, that is a redundant point.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
A truly existent thing is unintelligible. Doesn't even make sense, and so non-existence doesn't make sense either. This is freedom from eternalism and nihilism.

jeeprs said:
I'm almost on board with you. No individual thing is truly existent - it doesn't exist in and of itself. But it doesn't therefore follow that nothing is real. But 'what is real' is also beyond designation as this or that thing.

Nirvana, in the positive sense, I understand as waking up to reality, seeing the way things truly are. But in addition to the negative descriptions of Nirvana, there are also positive descriptions. That is why I am interested in studying 'In Praise of Dharmadhatu'. You might say that is not 'the same Nagarjuna', but according to the chapter I have been reading it is ascribed to Nagarjuna.  In that,  the Dharmadhatu is described in positive terms . Brunnholzl notes in his commentary, that there are quite a few expressions in such texts which are at variance with what the strictly Madhyamika interpretation is supposed to be.

krodha wrote:
Where are the negative descriptions of Nirvana though? I don't see this apparent dichotomy of the negative a positive... again, it's only 'negative' if we are trying to establish inherency somewhere. There is no inherency, if there were, there would be no movement, no fluctuation, no growth, no dynamism, nothing at all.

asunthatneversets said:
But a svabhāva is by definition unconditioned, not dependent on other entities, and not caused. Thus the existence of a svabhāva is impossible.

jeeprs said:
The way I interpret this is that, 'existence' is phenomenal realm, the manifest realm, the realm of existing things, you and I, self and other. Svabhāva, as it says, is not in this realm, being unconditioned.  There is not also some other realm 'over there', because ultimately there is only one reality, but from the point of view of 'the wayfarer', they are different realms.

But I don't think I have any issue with any of those texts you have quoted.

krodha wrote:
No, no... there is no manifest realm of 'existent things' and then some other realm (you clarified that this isn't what you meant though so nevermind). That isn't what this is saying at all. Svabhāva, means something which exists inherently on its own, completely free from causes and conditions. Nāgārjuna is saying such a thing is impossible. There are no conditioned things, and therefore there's nothing which is unconditioned.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:


hop.pala said:
When you read Nagarjuna and feel yourself good then probably are is on you on the right understanding,when feel yourself bad or feel nothing then probably not understand because only use the analytic side of your mind.The negation is always only for the analytic.The diverse buddhist logic is not for debate,it is only for the nonconceptual understanding.Attachment to "exist" or not exist" is not middle way.Middle way is nonconceptual,so is the attachment to emptiness is the same problem or to true self.

krodha wrote:
The point isn't an understanding in the mind which makes you feel good, nor an understanding which doesn't make you feel good. If either is the case, then the understanding is merely intellectual. The point is to experientially actualize the truth he is pointing to in your own condition, beyond the intellect.

The negation is not always for the analytic. If you have seen emptiness, then it is plain as day that whatever it is you think exists, has never ever ever inherently (truly) existed.

There is no attachment to exist or non-existence going on in this discussion. Inherent existence is always negated, conventional existence (while a product of ignorance) is a useful tool and so it is tolerated because we of course have no other choice. That doesn't mean the conventional has any true reality, conventional things are merely conventions.

Emptiness is the middle way, a freedom from extremes.

Attachment to emptiness is only an issue when emptiness is turned into a view. Since emptiness is the pacification of views, turning emptiness into a view itself negates the entire premise of emptiness. The point is, as you said; non-conceptual realization.

Only the mind clings, clinging to emptiness means the deluded mind hasn't been pacified, and the understanding is only intellectual. Of course interacting here on a forum online, we have to use language to communicate and function within the conventional, these discussions don't constitute 'clinging to emptiness' though.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
In other words, the two truths only really become truly Buddhist when one views them as two aspects of the same "thing". Otherwise we simply have a dualistic theory no different to other religions.

hop.pala said:
Right.This can be an explanation,why can i accept the true self and the view of Nagarjuna in the same time.The understanding is nonconceptual.

krodha wrote:
And futerko is right, even though you have me accidentally cited instead, the two truths are like two aspects.

"The two truths are not different like two horns; in the conventionally real phase, when one sees the reflection of the moon in the water, insofar as there is the reflection, this is the conventionally real; insofar as this reflection is not the moon, this is the absolutely real. The fact that both represent one fact insofar as there is the presence of the moon in the water of the well without existing there, is the indivisibility of the two truths. About the intellect that understands it in this way, it is said that it understands the two truths."
- Longchenpa

and

"Like mistakenly seeing a rope as a snake,
with these varied appearances
we perceive them as what they are not,
giving rise to the duality of externality and internality,
i.e. the material environments and life forms therein.
However, upon scrutiny only the rope itself is found - 
These environments and life forms are primordially empty,
as the ultimate only seems to have such concrete form 
within the dissimulating process of the conventional.
The perception of a snake is phenomenologically true in terms of our seeing it as so,
but seeing the rope instead is authentically true;
analogically, it is like the appearance of a bird on a promontory:
The nature of these two truths is that
this transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to - 
In the expanse of emptiness
everything is free within it's essence."
- Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 11:55 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
In other words, the two truths only really become truly Buddhist when one views them as two aspects of the same "thing". Otherwise we simply have a dualistic theory no different to other religions.

hop.pala said:
Right.This can be an explanation,why can i accept the true self and the view of Nagarjuna in the same time.The understanding is nonconceptual.

krodha wrote:
There's no way... Nāgārjuna adamately negates a true self, such a thing is impossible.

"Svabhāva is by definition the subject of contradictory ascriptions. If it exists, it must belong to an existent entity, which means that it must be conditioned, dependent on other entities, and possessed of causes. But a svabhāva is by definition unconditioned, not dependent on other entities, and not caused. Thus the existence of a svabhāva is impossible."
- Nāgārjuna


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Since there is nothing that exists unconditionally there is nothing that inherently exists. Dependent existence is not existence.

jeeprs said:
And, as I say, it tends directly towards nihilism, because the logical implication is, nothing whatever exists.

@futerko - I love the turtle.

krodha wrote:
Nothing exists inherently. But that also means that there is nothing that is inherently non-existent either, so nihilism is impossible. This is like seeing a rope as a snake, when you recognize that it's actually a rope, the snake is realized to be non-arisen. However in this case the rope represents the non-arising nature of the snake; its emptiness.

Things have a conventional nature, we can relatively say that they're existent conventionally, but that doesn't leave the realm of conventionality. The conventional designation is only inferred, the convention doesn't refer, there's nothing findable for it to refer to. This is the joyful irony.

A truly existent thing is unintelligible. Doesn't even make sense, and so non-existence doesn't make sense either. Therefore there is freedom from both eternalism and nihilism.

The only way you can perceive it as nihilistic, is if you believe that things exist inherently. Then yes this will appear as if your inherent things are being negated, because they are. Truly though, this reveals that there was nothing to negate in the first place. Inherent things are the delusion of the grasping mind, and do this is simply freedom from ignorance. Freedom from taking mirages, illusions, dream images, etc. as truly real.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
jeeprs said:
Eternalism means a view that there is something which is truly established or existent.
I take it to mean that there is something that is eternal and existent, by virtue of which 'some ascetics' believe that they will be reborn in perpetuity.
The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, set firmly as a post. And though these beings rush around, circulate, pass away and re-arise, but this remains eternally.
Brahmajāla Sutta

Here, ‘this’ is that which ‘the eternalist’ believes is something durable, within which ‘beings rush around, circulate and re-arise’. This arises from the Vedic idea of sat as being ‘what really exists’, which is to be distinguished from asat, that which is illusory or unreal. Hence in this formulation, sat is what is ‘eternal, unchangeable, set firmly as a post’, and thus distinguishable from samsara or maya. It is conceived as ‘the essence of things’, both in general terms as Brahman and particular beings as ātman.

The Alagaddūpama Sutta criticizes those who think: This is the self, this is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’ - this too he [i.e. ‘the eternalist’] regards thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’
That is an accurate view of what is criticized as 'eternalism', is it not?

Contrast that with the udanna which says:
There is, monks, an unborn  — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.
"Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)" (Ud 8.3),

I take it that this 'unborn' is not something which is permanent, in the sense of existing continuously, in the way that 'the barren mountain peak' is conceived. It is not, properly, an object of thought or perception. But it is also not something non-existent. And I think that is because, what is 'eternal' is a different idea to 'something that exists by itself forever'.

Is that how you understand it?

krodha wrote:
A view of 'existence' is eternalism. For something to truly exist (inherently) it must exist outright, independent of causes and conditions. Since there is nothing that exists unconditionally there is nothing that inherently exists. Dependent existence is not existence.

There is no 'unborn' as a separate entity. The unborn is the non-arising (emptiness) of the imputed projections of mind mistaken as inherent reality. Unborn means non-arisen i.e. emptiness. Non-existence isn't a possibility because existence hasn't been posited in the first place. Only the deluded mind perceives extremes of existence, non-existence, both and/or neither. Emptiness is free of these. The unborn is dharmakāya.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: Are these prophecies from Buddha?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The Kali Yuga!


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
ASunThatNeverSets said:
Madhyamaka only results in nihilism in those who don't understand it, if it's understood what Madhyamaka is pointing to then nihilism is impossible

jeeprs said:
It still seems to me that Buddhism attracts many people with nihilist tendencies, whether they know that or not, and that it is very easy to rationalize that outlook in Zen and Madhyamika.

I don't agree that what Son of Buddha is advocating in this thread, is 'eternalism'. 'Eternalism' is the view that 'the self and the world will be reborn in perpetuity', as explained in Bikkhu Bodhi's commentary on the Brahmajala Sutta. But 'true nature' or 'Buddha nature' is not mere absence, nothingness, or non-being, and nirvana is not simply annihilation. However it is also inconceivable, beyond the samsaric mind, and beyond categories of existence and non-existence.

But I am not going to repeat multiple pages of argumentation about it.

krodha wrote:
Eternalism means a view that there is something which is truly established or existent. Meaning it's unconditioned, such a quality, capacity or thing is impossible in the eyes of the buddhadharma.

No one has said that one's nature is absence, nothingness or non-being. Also no one has ever suggested that nirvana is annihilation. This is what I mean by not understanding emptiness.

When you say one's nature is inconceivable, free of samsaric mind and free of the categories of existence or non-existence (both and neither), then this is emptiness.

So you've disparaged (your misunderstanding of) emptiness, and then proceeded to advocate for emptiness (thinking you were advocating for a contrasting view).

asunthatneversets said:
The Nāgārjuna who wrote 'In Praise of the Dharmadhātu' is not the same as the original Indian Nāgārjuna.

jeeprs said:
Karl Brunnholzl does not agree and provides extensive citations in support. He also says '..as much as some people might like to do so, it is impossible to restrict [Nagarjuna's] approach to negative or deconstructive rhetoric' (p25}. As he is a senior teacher at Nitartha Institute, I think his arguments ought to be heeded.


krodha wrote:
No one suggested Nāgārjuna's approach was negative or deconstructive. Only that those who grasp at their conditioning perceive it as such.

And unless Nāgārjuna lived for centuries, they aren't the same person.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
Xabir said:
You don't have to take my word for it... just keep an open mind that the traditions could actually be speaking of different realizations (rather than merely 'sectarian polemics'), and that there might actually be people who have gone through these different realizations and are able to differentiate them.

jeeprs said:
I agree with that. I too have been through a lot of different phases, I'm sure that happens a lot with modern urban people, we are surrounded by books and information and resources, far more that you would have had in a traditional environment. (BTW I've seen Greg Goode speak, and also his collaborator and student Tomas Sander, on 'Emptiness and Post-Modernism' at one of the two Science and Non-Duality conferences I have been to, where the majority of the speakers were from a neo-Advaita type of background.)

I was very moved by my initial encounter with Ramana Maharishi's book, but then around the same time also got Zen Mind Beginner's Mind, (this is a long time ago now) and I thought that it was a more feasible and real teaching for me. So I embarked on reading Buddhism, took refuge and maintain a meditation practice.

But  in the context of this debate, I tend to support the point of view being put forward by Son of Buddha, but I won't repeat all the arguments again. Suffice to say, it is very easy for Madhyamika to tend towards nihilism or to support nihilistic interpretations. I think the teaching of 'emptiness' is easily misrepresented as a kind of intellectual formula. I understand it in terms of paravritti, transformation of consciousness. As Tomas Sander said in his talk, in the Buddhist perspective, this is not necessarily understood as being like a dramatic mountain-top awakening, but in terms of 'joyful irony', of seeing how things are (and have always been), day to day. So I relate to that, but *not* to Stephen Bachelor's Buddhist Atheism and his 'interpretation' of emptiness. (Tomas Sander's new blog in support of his book is http://awakeningclarity.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/first-chapter-preview-emptiness-and.html.)

The key thing for me has to be compassion. Whatever practice you're doing, whatever path you're on, if it doesn't actually generate the energy of compassion, like a power-station turns out electricity, then it's not working.  Early on in my path I had the good fortune to go to a talk by the renowned Lama Yeshe and that talk really turned on a light-bulb for me (not that I knew it at the time. His lecture was similar to http://fpmt.org/education/teachings/lama-thubten-yeshe/bodhicitta-the-perfection-of-dharma/.)

I have just ordered Karl Brunnholzl's translation of and commentary on In Praise of Dharmadhatu. That is a very different side of Nagarjuna -  devotional, rather than dialectical.

krodha wrote:
Madhyamaka only results in nihilism in those who don't understand it, if it's understood what Madhyamaka is pointing to then nihilism is impossible. Most label it nihilistic because they see it deconstructing the delusions of mind we've been conditioned to think are inherent aspects of experience and so they find it uncomfortable. Those who conceive of a True Self are the ones promoting nihilism, there is no being without non-being, no eternalism without nihilism, no true self without a false one (or an absence of that True Self); these are all delusions of mind.

No one's suggesting that emptiness is an intellectual endeavor, nor are I or xabir mistaking it as such.

If you lean towards Son of Buddha's view then you champion an eternalistic doctrine, which there's nothing wrong with, but I would say that is why you see nihilism elsewhere.

The Nāgārjuna who wrote 'In Praise of the Dharmadhātu' is not the same as the original Indian Nāgārjuna.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 3:01 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'm sorry I had a typo in this Longchenpa quote (I posted earlier) above, which potentially obfuscated the meaning of the quote... Instead of 'no similarity', I had accidentally typed 'to similarity'. Here's the fixed quotation:

Third turning (Vajrayāna) does not teach that there is a 'True Self', as Longchenpa states here:

"The final [turning] for the sake of those who had reached fulfillment and who were of sharpest capacity taught the nature of all that is knowable, as it really is. As such, it bears no similarity to the Self of the Hindu heretics because these people in their ignorance speak of a 'Self' that does not actually exist, being a mere imputation superimposed on reality."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Title: Re: Is disability a result of karma?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I read today that resting in vidyā [rig pa] for three seconds purifies a kalpa of negative karma.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
krodha wrote:
Still, this doesn't mean third turning asserts the existence of a True Self. My Kagyu lama, who is a Mahāmudrā master, rejects this notion outright. He states that the 'vajra' in Vajrayāna means emptiness, and those who claim Vajrayāna states something other than the other two yānas in regards to selfhood, are sadly misinformed.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
And then you get teachings like this... clearly denigrating notions of a self of any kind, including your alleged Universal Self.

The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra:

"Moreover, these sentient beings must have also discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conceptions of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self (True Self), because if they had not, their minds would inevitably grasp after such relative ideas. Further, these sentient beings must have already discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conception of the non-existence of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self. If they had not, their minds would still be grasping after such ideas. Therefore, every disciple who is seeking Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi should discard, not only conceptions of one's own selfhood, other selves, living beings and a Universal Selfhood, but should discard, also, all ideas about such conceptions and all ideas about the non-existence of such conceptions."

and

"Such a person will be able to awaken pure faith because they have ceased to cherish any arbitrary notions of their own selfhood, other selves, living beings, or a universal self. Why? Because if they continue to hold onto arbitrary conceptions as to their own selfhood, they will be holding onto something that is non-existent. It is the same with all arbitrary conceptions of other selves, living beings, or a universal self. These are all expressions of non-existent things. Buddhas are Buddhas because they have been able to discard all arbitrary conceptions of form and phenomena, they have transcended all perceptions, and have penetrated the illusion of all forms."

and

"If a disciple cherishes the idea of a self, a person, a living being or a universal self, then that person is not an authentic disciple. Why? Because in fact there is no independently existing object of mind called the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind."

and

"A true disciple knows that there is no such thing as a self, a person, a living being, or a universal self. A true disciple knows that all things are devoid of selfhood"

Son of Buddha said:
your post has nothing to do with what is actually taught in the Third Turning Sutras or Tantra's.
This is from the second Turning not the 3rd turning.
as I said the Third Turning teaches True Self.

(also the Samdhi-nirmochana Sutra places your quote in the provisional Dharma while stating the Third Turning to be definite)

krodha wrote:
And Dzogchen, for example, states that the third turning is provisional while itself is definitive. It all depends on the teaching. Dzogpa Chenpo upholds a freedom from extremes, thoroughly negating a True Self, and when referencing the yānas and other systems; considers early Indian Prasangika Madhyamaka to be a definitive view (because it likewise upholds a freedom from extremes).

So your 'definitive' is provisional as well. Context is everything.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Lastly ill add this
The Buddhas teach that emptiness
Removes, without fail, all clinging to views,
But those who cling to the view of emptiness
Are said to be incorrigible.

krodha wrote:
Also, this quote is irrelevant to this discussion. It is stating that emptiness is the pacification of views, because it is the pacification of the ignorance which grasps and clings. Ergo; grasping and clinging to the means or principle (emptiness) which removes views, is turning the means into a view itself, thereby negating emptiness. This isn't saying that emptiness is wrong, it's saying that objectifying emptiness in the relative mind is not the meaning of emptiness. Emptiness pacifies views, if you make emptiness into a view then you've failed to pacify views.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
krodha wrote:
And then you get teachings like this... clearly denigrating notions of a self of any kind, including your alleged Universal Self.

The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra:

"Moreover, these sentient beings must have also discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conceptions of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self (True Self), because if they had not, their minds would inevitably grasp after such relative ideas. Further, these sentient beings must have already discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conception of the non-existence of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self. If they had not, their minds would still be grasping after such ideas. Therefore, every disciple who is seeking Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi should discard, not only conceptions of one's own selfhood, other selves, living beings and a Universal Selfhood, but should discard, also, all ideas about such conceptions and all ideas about the non-existence of such conceptions."

and

"Such a person will be able to awaken pure faith because they have ceased to cherish any arbitrary notions of their own selfhood, other selves, living beings, or a universal self. Why? Because if they continue to hold onto arbitrary conceptions as to their own selfhood, they will be holding onto something that is non-existent. It is the same with all arbitrary conceptions of other selves, living beings, or a universal self. These are all expressions of non-existent things. Buddhas are Buddhas because they have been able to discard all arbitrary conceptions of form and phenomena, they have transcended all perceptions, and have penetrated the illusion of all forms."

and

"If a disciple cherishes the idea of a self, a person, a living being or a universal self, then that person is not an authentic disciple. Why? Because in fact there is no independently existing object of mind called the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind."

and

"A true disciple knows that there is no such thing as a self, a person, a living being, or a universal self. A true disciple knows that all things are devoid of selfhood"


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist parenting
Content:
disjointed said:
Just my ideas. It might be better to raise children as Buddhists.

krodha wrote:
Important to tread lightly (and wisely) though; my mentor is a perfect example of this. His son is now in his late 20's, but when he was a child, my mentor made sure that he created a fun environment around the dharma. He never pushed it on his son, but made it enjoyable. For instance; he would place his son on his shoulders and let him ring the bell and wave the vajra around and they would clap and dance and sing Vajra Guru Mantra... his son remembers it to this day.

When his son got older, and there were teachings to attend, my mentor would set up a fun outing around the event, and let his son bring a video game he could play quietly during the teaching. Before hand they would go and get lunch wherever his son wanted to, and afterwards they would go see a movie and get ice cream. So his son learned that going to the teachings wasn't all that bad. During empowerments and important transmissions (meaning in the moments the teacher was giving the wang or lung) he would have his son sit on his lap and pay attention, but the rest of the time he was allowed to play quietly. He never pushed it on his son though, and now that his son is older, he's an avid Chödpa and is very passionate about the Dharma. He's also a happy and well balanced guy, so my mentor did good raising him.

I do the same with my son, who's 4. He knows about buddhas, and says they're like magical ninjas, he'll have his toy ninjas pretend to meditate etc. I let him ring the bell and pretend he's shooting lighting out of the vajra. We hung prayer flags in his room, and he's visited my Kagyu lama here in SF who gave him a small wooden prayer wheel and a pouch for his toys. I've taken him to group practice (ganapuja) and let him take a brief look at webcasts from Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche (when I'm watching) until he loses interest. He knows about the Dzogchen guardians (I have a large thangka with the three of them on it he looks at) and says they're the guys who kick butt. He has a positive perception of the Dharma and that's all that's important I think. Whether he chooses to be involved with it when he's older, that will be up to him, I'll never push it on him. The last thing I'd want is to try and condition him like that. That is when you get resistance and can ruin the experience for them. It's just good to create a positive and light environment with the teachings, have the Dharma present and accessible but don't ever indoctrinate or insist upon it.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
you do realise the Samdhinirmocana sutra states that the 1st and 2nd turnings are provisional and only the 3rd turning is definite right?
so those 3rd turning True Self teaching are considered the definite teaching by this sutra you mention.

krodha wrote:
Third turning (Vajrayāna) does not teach that there is a 'True Self', as Longchenpa states here:

"The final [turning] for the sake of those who had reached fulfillment and who were of sharpest capacity taught the nature of all that is knowable, as it really is. As such, it bears to similarity to the Self of the Hindu heretics because these people in their ignorance speak of a 'Self' that does not actually exist, being a mere imputation superimposed on reality."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: dream yoga and supplements, pills, some questions
Content:
futerko said:
Sorry, I should've been more specific. On the "Emptiness and the two truths" thread you wrote,
"The view of Buddha nature I personally champion is the gzhi of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo; the inseparable three kāyas and their respective wisdoms. Primordial wisdom free from extremes."

So it seems you've used the term "gzhi" in two different senses here. I take it that it is the ālaya that falls away and not the kāyas. I'm far more familiar with the second usage.
Thanks for the references, that gives me plenty to go on.

asunthatneversets said:
Yeah there's the basis [gzhi] which is the three kāyas, and then the all-basis [kun gzhi] which is the result of not recognizing the gzhi.

futerko said:
Ahh, I see, thanks.

krodha wrote:
Also, sometimes Bönpo Dzogchen doesn't differentiate between the basis [gzhi] and all-basis [kun gzhi], they'll just refer to the basis as 'kun zhi', I've also attended a teaching by Keith Dowman, for example, and he didn't differentiate the bases either. So that's something to watch out for because it can make things potentially confusing. Bönpo masters like Lopon Tenzin Namdak will differentiate the basis and all-basis, and Nyingma Dzogchen does as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Beautiful Dhamma songs/Chantings
Content:
krodha wrote:
Palden Rangjung: Homage to Ekajati

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 10:52 AM
Title: Re: Deadbeat parents
Content:
krodha wrote:
My teacher has said sometimes compassion must be expressed in the form of 'tough love', meaning that if the circumstances call for it, the best course of action may not appear to be (what we would conventionally consider to be) compassionate. If we simply give aid to someone and allow their abusive behavior or habits to continue, then this isn't being compassionate, because all we are doing is enabling them. Compassion doesn't mean rolling over and letting people get away with murder, or becoming a doormat and letting people walk all over us (or others). It's important to find a strong balance and be able to give peaceful and wrathful compassion in accordance with whatever circumstances we are faced with.

In my opinion; 'giving without limit' means precisely that. Being able to adapt and give the proper aid the situation calls for. Not limiting ourselves to associating compassionate activity with being a 'nice person' who simply enables people to do whatever they want, that's being stupid, not compassionate.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
Sherab said:
Given the above, there are those that resort solely to dependent arising, arguing that everything is dependent on something else and this goes on ad infinitum.  For those who believe that everything has a cause, then they have to posit an endless chain of causation.  For those who are familiar with logic, such arguments can never be a complete argument and therefore not intellectually satisfying.

krodha wrote:
You're failing to understand how dependent origination works. Things depending upon other things is not what is being pointed to in dependent origination, perhaps a notion of that nature can be used in a very crude and coarse way, but it is unskillful and will not alleviate suffering or the ignorance which causes it. The cause is ignorance; delusion about the nature of experience and reality. The entire charade of samsara is built and predicated upon that ignorance. 'Causes and conditions' isn't speaking of coarse causes, such as the 'endless chain of causality' you referenced, nothing of the sort. Delusion and the propensities which come from that delusion, are the causes and conditions which birth and sustain conditioned existence.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I never mentioned existence or non-existence, but yes a freedom from extremes would imply all four extremes.

Sherab said:
Freedom from extremes is just a short cut for freedom from the extreme of existent, non-existent, both existent and non-existent, and neither existent nor non-existent.

krodha wrote:
Right, as I said; 'freedom from extremes would imply all four extremes'.

asunthatneversets said:
Liberation isn't about being free from dependent origination,

Sherab said:
Then we are talking pass one another.

Thanks for the discussion.

krodha wrote:
A buddha's freedom from dependent origination is due to seeing dependent origination for what it is. The root of dependent origination is ignorance, see ignorance for what it is, and it no longer has power over your condition. When that knowledge increases to it's full measure, there is buddhahood.

As Nāgārjuna says:
"Neither samsara nor nirvana exist;
instead, nirvana is the thorough knowledge of samsara"

Dependent origination and emptiness [śūnyatā] are synonymous in most traditions. The chain of dependent origination [12 nidānas] arises due to ignorance [avidyā], which is the first 'link' in the chain. Once ignorance arises the chain of causation then perpetually builds upon itself. The idea is that the chain of dependent origination doesn't actually create anything at all, but we mistakenly perceive it as valid, and so we are beguiled into taking our own ignorance as inherent aspects of experience. The theory of dependent origination is a tool which can help 'undo' or 'see through' the chain (though there's nothing to truly 'undo', it's simply a matter of understanding the nature of our habitual tendencies and propensities which reify these aspects of experience).

"The wonder of it! This marvelous, astounding event/reality (Dharma):
From that which involves no origination, everything originates;
and in that very origination, there is no origination!
The wonder of it!
In it's very enduring, there is no enduring!
The wonder of it!
In it's very cessation, there is no cessation!"
- Guhyagarbha Tantra

Vimalamitra states [per Malcolm]:
"Everything arose from non-arising;
even arising itself never arose."

When we are ignorant of emptiness and dependent origination, conceptual imputation and conventional language are mistaken as pointing towards authentic persons, places, things, etc. When ignorance is undone, there is freedom to use conventional language, however it no longer creates confusion because wisdom directly knows ignorance for what it is.

In the buddhadharma, conventionality is allowed to be a tool implemented for communication, so there's freedom to be John Doe or Mary Smith, and trees, rocks, cars etc., are allowed to be the useful conceptual designations they are. Conventionality is treated as a useful tool which doesn't point to anything outside of itself. The conventional truth is relative... words, concepts, ideas, persons, places, things etc., and is contrasted by ultimate truth, which is the emptiness of those conventions. As Dilgo Khyenste Rinpoche shares: "By examining relative truth, establish absolute truth; Within absolute truth, see how relative truth arises. Where the two truths are inseparable, beyond intellect, is the state of simplicity."

Here the Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra discusses how conventional imputation gives rise to misconceptions when governed by delusion:
"Like mistakenly seeing a rope as a snake,
with these varied appearances
we perceive them as what they are not,
giving rise to the duality of externality and internality,
i.e. the material environments and life forms therein.
However, upon scrutiny only the rope itself is found - 
These environments and life forms are primordially empty,
as the ultimate only seems to have such concrete form 
within the dissimulating process of the conventional.
The perception of a snake is phenomenologically true in terms of our seeing it as so,
but seeing the rope instead is authentically true;
analogically, it is like the appearance of a bird on a promontory:
The nature of these two truths is that
this transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to - 
In the expanse of emptiness
everything is free within it's essence."

All apparent phenomena which fall under the category of 'conditioned' - meaning they seemingly accord with one or more of the four extremes [existence, nonexistence, both, neither] - originate dependently. We know this is so because there is no such thing as phenomena which is independent of causes and conditions, per Nāgārjuna:

"Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a non-empty thing
Does not exist."

If we look at the very first link in the chain of dependent origination, we find ignorance [avidyā], and as Nāgārjuna states:

"When the perfect vidyā [discerning wisdom knowledge] sees,
That things come from ignorance as condition,
Nothing will then be objectified,
Either in terms of arising or destruction."

So 'things' arise due to confusion and ignorance, once emptiness is realized, confusion and ignorance are undone, and 'things' are understood to be non-arisen. Non-arising isn't suggesting non-existence, because for the non-arisen, existence hasn't been suggested to begin with. Just as when you mistakenly view a rope to be a snake; the snake is a misconception, it's delusion, ignorance. Recognize the snake for what it is (a rope) and the snake falls, the snake is understood to have always been delusion, therefore the snake is non-arisen. Likewise, the aggregates (constituent aspects of experience) are a misconception, delusion, ignorance. Recognize the aggregates for what they are (the empty display of primordial wisdom) and the aggregates fall. The aggregates are understood to have always been delusion, therefore the aggregates are empty and non-arisen.

Phenomena which appear to be conditioned (and appear to accord with one or more of the four extremes), are in truth dependently originated and are therefore empty, unborn, non-arisen, free from extremes etc. When we mistakenly perceive something which we attribute substantiality (or insubstantiality) to (meaning it has originated and/or ceased), all that is occurring is a misapprehension within the confines of ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't an entity which is anymore established or valid than the apparent structuring it gives rise to... however ignorance is precisely the proclivity to habitually relate to experience in a way that reifies a subject-object dichotomy and all the subsequent arisings which depend on that dichotomy. It is that tendency to objectify phenomena and grasp which is one of the main issues.

Dependent origination is not truly origination, which is pointed out by Nāgārjuna in his 60 Stanzas:
"The supreme knower of reality, said that dependent production is not production."

Once ignorance falls, wisdom [prajñā] remains. Unafflicted dependent origination can unfold in wisdom (though it's usually called lhun grub; 'self-origination', 'natural formation' etc.), but wisdom is no longer fooled. So those projections aren't being reified. In wisdom, unafflicted dependent origination becomes freedom of expression, in delusion, afflicted dependent origination becomes the cause for delusion's own self-perpetuation.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Being empty of itself isn't equivalent to nihilism. Emptiness is a freedom from extremes and so is neither nihilistic or eternalistic.

Sherab said:
Since you hold that emptiness is freedom from the extremes of existence and non-existence  (note: there is no need to consider the other two extremes), then all that is left for you to claim would be that emptiness is dependent arising.  But since the ultimate is emptiness, then the ultimate is also dependent arising.  If everything is dependent arising then there is no need to talk about an ultimate.  But if everything is dependent arising, then there is no possibility of being liberated since liberation is about being able to be free from being a dependent arising.

krodha wrote:
I never mentioned existence or non-existence, but yes a freedom from extremes would imply all four extremes. Emptiness is synonymous with dependent origination in Madhyamaka. The ultimate is the emptiness of the relative. If everything is dependently arisen then it makes perfect sense to say that the ultimate nature of X is that it is empty. Liberation isn't about being free from dependent origination, but seeing that dependent origination is non-origination, and therefore there is liberation from the ignorance which perceives that phenomena accord with any extreme.

asunthatneversets said:
Liberation being a convention doesn't mean liberation isn't possible or an arbitrary notion, quite the opposite. If liberation was anything more than conventional it would indeed be impossible.

Sherab said:
You misunderstood.  I did not say nor imply that liberation is a convention.  What I did try to say is that if the conventional is all there is, then liberation is not possible.  See my argument above.

krodha wrote:
The 'ultimate' is nothing more than the emptiness of the relative i.e. conventional. There is nothing which isn't conventional.

asunthatneversets said:
The middle position is emptiness; the freedom from extreme views.

Sherab said:
Does this mean that emptiness is dependent arising?  If not, then how is emptiness a freedom from extreme views?

krodha wrote:
Dependent origination accords with a freedom from extremes. If emptiness isn't dependent origination then we border on the view of Dzogpa Chenpo which sees emptiness and dependent origination as antonymous, but only because they are used differently, the same principles still stand.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen vs Tantra
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The account of Kunzang Dechen Lingpa? Yes it is apparently an authoritative account.

Jikan said:
Of course.  I should have been clearer--I was asking about the first-person voice of the author of the awakening to reality blog, who is the one I know nothing about.

krodha wrote:
Ah the author is AEN who posts here as xabir, though he writes quite often he didn't write anything himself in that piece. Just referenced Malcolm's statements and some from the Kunzang Dechen Lingpa article (along with some insight from his own mentor).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen vs Tantra
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Rainbow body may not be what you think it is:
https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/03/rainbow-body-and-thusnesss-advise.html?m=1

Jikan said:
I don't know of the author of this item.  Is this an authoritative or accurate account?

krodha wrote:
The account of Kunzang Dechen Lingpa? Yes it is apparently an authoritative account.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
There's the whole aspect too where there really isn't an actual rang stong, but that rang stong is simply a straw man created by gzhan stong pas. Gzhan stong adopted a certain view and then said 'we're gzhan stong, all the rest of you are rang stong'. In all actuality those who are labeled rang stong pas are just those who follow the traditional view of emptiness, and would never refer to themselves as rang stong pas.

Sherab said:
Both rang stong and gzhan stong are straw men.

If the ultimate is empty of itself, you are forced into two possible extreme positions.  One is that the ultimate is really nothing and that would be nihilism.  The other extreme position is that the conventional is all there is and that would imply that liberation is not possible.

If the ultimate is not empty of itself but empty of other, you are forced into saying that the ultimate has inherent existence.  If so, it would be permanent.  If it is permanent, it cannot produce anything.  If it cannot produce anything, there can be no phenomena.  All you will get is a static world.

That is why such debates using mutually exclusive pairs of words such as existent and non-existent etc. is futile because it is not possible to come to the "middle" position as taught in the suttas/sutras.

krodha wrote:
Being empty of itself isn't equivalent to nihilism. Emptiness is a freedom from extremes and so is neither nihilistic or eternalistic.

Liberation being a convention doesn't mean liberation isn't possible or an arbitrary notion, quite the opposite. If liberation was anything more than conventional it would indeed be impossible.

The middle position is emptiness; the freedom from extreme views.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
And Shentongpas are only following the traditional views of emptiness found in the Buddha Nature Sutras.

asunthatneversets said:
That's debatable. I'm going to respond to your last post, I read it while I was at my Kagyu lama's center. Drubpon Yeshi Rinpoche (who is visiting) was telling his life story tonight and he added randomly that we should be practicing and not debating and constructing intellectual models. I'm sure he knew, my teacher here is clairvoyant as well :\

Son of Buddha said:
its actually not debatable......seeing as I have already proven that the Shentong view is literally copied and pasted from the Buddha Nature Sutras.
I could post 20 more quotes where it says Enlightenment is empty of all defilements but it is not empty of its own inherently pure Nature and you would still deny what is clearly written in front of you.

P.S. Its actually a practice to debate in the vajrayana tradition.many traditions set aside time to debate everyday.

krodha wrote:
Of course it's debatable, anything and everything is. I could also post various quotes which state that enlightenment is empty of all defilements and its also empty of its own nature. You'd deny what's in front of you as well.

Yes I know about the debate and debate often, the Drikung Kagyu is just very practice oriented, and Yeshi Rinpoche is very traditional to his lineage.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: dream yoga and supplements, pills, some questions
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The all-basis [skt. ālaya, tib. kun gzhi] essentially represents non-recognition of our nature, and so is naturally implied if we aren't in recognition of our nature. Differentiating mind and vidyā, or the all-basis and vidyā, mind and the nature of mind, ālaya and dharmakāya, etc., is a common theme in Dzogchen.

futerko said:
Sorry, I should've been more specific. On the "Emptiness and the two truths" thread you wrote,
"The view of Buddha nature I personally champion is the gzhi of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo; the inseparable three kāyas and their respective wisdoms. Primordial wisdom free from extremes."

So it seems you've used the term "gzhi" in two different senses here. I take it that it is the ālaya that falls away and not the kāyas. I'm far more familiar with the second usage.
Thanks for the references, that gives me plenty to go on.

krodha wrote:
Yeah there's the basis [gzhi] which is the three kāyas, and then the all-basis [kun gzhi] which is the result of not recognizing the gzhi.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 1:48 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen vs Tantra
Content:
krodha wrote:
Depends who you ask I'm sure, Dzogchen is held to produce a buddhahood which is superior even to other dharma vehicles, as Malcolm has shared before: "this is why the Dzogchen doctrine of two different kinds of Buddhahood is critical -- the first, the buddhahood that reverts the basis is the buddhahood asserted by all lower vehicles. The buddhahood that does not revert to the basis is the preserve of only Dzogchen".


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
There's the whole aspect too where there really isn't an actual rang stong, but that rang stong is simply a straw man created by gzhan stong pas. Gzhan stong adopted a certain view and then said 'we're gzhan stong, all the rest of you are rang stong'. In all actuality those who are labeled rang stong pas are just those who follow the traditional view of emptiness, and would never refer to themselves as rang stong pas.

Son of Buddha said:
And Shentongpas are only following the traditional views of emptiness found in the Buddha Nature Sutras.

krodha wrote:
That's debatable. I'm going to respond to your last post, I read it while I was at my Kagyu lama's center. Drubpon Yeshi Rinpoche (who is visiting) was telling his life story tonight and he added randomly that we should be practicing and not debating and constructing intellectual models. I'm sure he knew, my teacher here is clairvoyant as well :\


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 12:35 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
krodha wrote:
There's the whole aspect too where there really isn't an actual rang stong, but that rang stong is simply a straw man created by gzhan stong pas. Gzhan stong adopted a certain view and then said 'we're gzhan stong, all the rest of you are rang stong'. In all actuality those who are labeled rang stong pas are just those who follow the traditional view of emptiness, and would never refer to themselves as rang stong pas.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Title: Re: dream yoga and supplements, pills, some questions
Content:
krodha wrote:
The ālaya's aspects are defined as fourfold...

'The four in detal are:

 The primordial ālaya: the attendance of nescience upon wisdom - that aspect [of nescience] that from the beginning arises simultaneously with gnosis, like tarnish on gold; it serves as the initial basis for all samsaric phenomena.

[ii] The linking-up ālaya: the basis of karmic activity, the neutral basic support that links up and impels through one's individual karma to samsara and nirvana. 

[iii] The ālaya of various imprints: the neutral [basis] of diverse latent karma that generates the samsaric cycle of mind and mental factors. 

[iv] The ālaya of the body of imprints: nescience as a basis, a ground for the manifestation of three different bodies [a] a gross body that manifests as parts, whose limbs and organs are [composed of] minute particles,  radiant body of light, and [c] a body that manifests out of contemplation.'


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Title: Re: dream yoga and supplements, pills, some questions
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The all-basis is what falls away when we recognize our nature.

futerko said:
Could you elaborate on this, or provide a reference please?

krodha wrote:
The nature of mind is 'non-dual emptiness and clarity', so either (i) clarity (cognizance) must be recognized as empty, or (ii) emptiness must be recognized as non-dual with clarity.

The all-basis [skt. ālaya, tib. kun gzhi] essentially represents non-recognition of our nature, and so is naturally implied if we aren't in recognition of our nature. Differentiating mind and vidyā, or the all-basis and vidyā, mind and the nature of mind, ālaya and dharmakāya, etc., is a common theme in Dzogchen.

Clarity (cognizance) alone implies a subtle reference point and a subtle grasping, but when clarity is sealed with emptiness that reference point is freed up and the grasping is cut. cl
Clarity alone (divorced of the recognition of its emptiness) is merely the neutral indeterminate cognizance of the ālaya. All sentient beings function from the standpoint of the ālaya.

There's (i) non-fixation which is resting in the clarity of mind (as a reference point), and then there's (ii) non-fixation resting in the nature of mind (free of a reference point). Confusing the former for the latter causes a lot of issues.

Dudjom Rinpoche points out the difference between the ālaya and vidyā [rig pa]:

"When the mind starts to rest, a slight diminishment of movement and thoughts constitutes a false semblance of stillness. When deep certainty arises that stillness is unborn and movement unceasing, and that stillness and movement are an equal taste, you have begun to meditate correctly."

The ālaya is the deluded reference point of mind which abides as the 'stillness' behind the movement of thought. This is also the clarity of mind. The deep certainty he's alluding to is the recognition of the mind's nature, where that clarity (i.e. stillness) is recognized as empty (or unborn as he puts it). Instead of the background stillness or clarity, it's recognized that the stillness was only ever precisely the movement of thought and phenomena, and that 'cognizance' is precisely the 'forms' of experience, at that point 'stillness and movement are an equal taste' as Dudjom Rinpoche put it, and that is knowledge of the mind's nature, which is vidyā [rig pa]. 'Meditating correctly' in this context means authentic vipaśyanā i.e. resting in the natural state.

The Reverberation of Sound Tantra explains the etymology of 'all-basis':
"The etymology of 'kun' [all] lies in it's subsuming everything.
The etymology of 'gzhi' [basis] lies in it's accumulation and hoarding (of karmic traces and propensities)."

The same text continues:
"Here I will explain the all-basis to start off:
It is the ground of all phenomena and non-phenomena."

The Tantra of the Self-Arisen Vidyā states:
"The all-basis [skt. ālaya, tib. kun gzhi] is adulterated by diverse cognitive processes
By force of it's sustaining neurotic conceptuality;
The all-basis is the real ignorance [skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa]."

Jigme Lingpa in 'Distinguishing The Three Essential Points of Dzogchen' states:
"The ālaya is the basis of all samsara and nirvana;
It is not unlike muddy water.
[In it], because of confusion led by latent ignorance,
The brightness of wisdom and gnosis has become hidden."

Elsewhere he states:

"Those who, not understanding this, mistake the ālaya for the dharmakāya, are like blind men wandering in the desert without a guide. Because of their confusion about the vital points of the basis and result, they have come to a standstill on the path that accomplishes buddhahood in one lifetime."


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 9:32 AM
Title: Re: dream yoga and supplements, pills, some questions
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Thanks, that was very interesting. I know next to nothing about Dzogchen really, I need to read up.

krodha wrote:
It's good stuff. The info above spans Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna and Dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
We can cherry pick quotes all day which support our positions

Son of Buddha said:
,

I can cheery pick quotes all day from the Many Buddha Nature Sutras to support my position.
you however can only cherry pick ONE quote from the Buddha Nature Sutras to support your position (its literally the ONLY quote you guys have)

krodha wrote:
These are your interpretations, you see what you want to see and find reference material which you believe supports your confirmation biases. The authority you find and provide is that which you give power to via belief and opinion. The same goes for any point of view I have. The difference is that I am not claiming a definitive view and willing it onto the entire spectrum of Buddha nature teachings so I can validate my opinion.

I can provide other citations. However I have no interest in persuading you out of your view, I'm only interested in placing some moderation on your claim that gzhan stong is definitive, by showing that such a notion doesn't leave the realm of opinion.

Son of Buddha said:
the problem with your statement is the information I provided is not my opinion at all, it is what the Queen Srimala Sutra clearly states.
the position of Shentong(other-Emptiness) is taught in the Queen Srimala Sutra (its literally word for word..........and its word for word cause Dolpopa quoted it )

krodha wrote:
And there are various views which refute such a position. I never said the information itself is an opinion, the part that is an opinion, is your assertion that your position on the matter is an authoritative interpretation.

Son of Buddha said:
Nonsense Dolpopa wrote an extensive Book on Shentong its called Mountain Doctrine.......... in his book he literally quotes the Buddha Nature Sutras and lets them speak for themselves, then afterwards he give a small commentary on the passage itself.so Dolpopas views are entirely based on Buddha Nature Sutras .

matter of FACT what are your views of Buddha Nature based on????????
can you quote from the Buddha Nature Sutras to support your position??
(surely you have more than just one quote right?)

krodha wrote:
Dolpopa didn't write a book on gzhan stong, he invented gzhan stong. He gives his own interpretation, an interpretation of the Buddha Nature sutras.

What is my view of Buddha nature? In the context of the Buddha nature sutras; it is a notion (more accurately a skillful means i.e. upāya) to instill confidence and show that buddhahood is a latent possibility; the curd in milk, which can be actualized given the proper causes and conditions.

The view of Buddha nature I personally champion is the gzhi of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo; the inseparable three kāyas and their respective wisdoms. Primordial wisdom free from extremes. The Buddha nature sutras, while valuable, are unnecessary (in the context of Atiyoga) and do not support that position.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 8:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen vs Tantra
Content:
krodha wrote:
Relevant threads...

Atomic and Rainbow bodies:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9748

Females who achieved Rainbow body:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9945

Rainbow body may not be what you think it is:
https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/03/rainbow-body-and-thusnesss-advise.html?m=1


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
The correct view on Emptiness in relation to the Buddha Nature is Shentong (literally)

asunthatneversets said:
In your opinion (literally).

Son of Buddha said:
You must not of read my passage I posted
"O Lord, there are two kinds of wisdom of emptiness with reference to the tathāgatagarbha. The tathāgatagarbha that is empty is separate from, free from, and different from the stores of all defile ments. And the tathāgatagarbha that is not empty is not separate from, not free from, and not different from the inconceivable Buddha-Dharmas more numerous than the sands of the Ganges River. “O Lord, the various great disciples can believe in the Tathā gata with reference to the two wisdoms of emptiness. All arhats and pratyekabuddhas revolve in the realm of the four contrary views"

its not my opinion the Queen Srimala Sutras position on emptiness is LITERALLY Shentong.

(Dolpopas teachings on Shentong(other-emptiness) was simply copied from the Buddha Nature Sutras....he didnt create anything new)

krodha wrote:
We can cherry pick quotes all day which support our positions, that still doesn't discount the fact that it is your own opinion that these selected quotes are authoritative and represent the full spectrum of views regarding buddha nature. It's quite obvious they do not, because that is impossible. So the principle still stands that it is your own opinion the correct view regarding emptiness and buddha nature is gzhan stong.

Dolpopa's gzhan stong is Advaita Vedanta dressed in Buddhist drag, so you're right he didn't create anything new; he simply adopted an eternalistic tīrthika view and paraded it as buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 8:04 AM
Title: Re: dream yoga and supplements, pills, some questions
Content:
krodha wrote:
In the Dröltig Gongpa Rangdröl it states that even up until the path of no more learning (which is equivalent to aspect of non-meditation in Mahāmudrā and accords with the fourth vision of thögal) there is remnants of delusion in sleep:

"With the exhaustion of striving for mindfulness, meditation and post-meditation are completely mixed. Though subtle stains of delusion remain during sleep; this is called the lesser yoga of no more learning [lesser non-meditation]."

Then the next degree:

"Throughout the day and night, you become entirely at one with the luminosity; the subtle luminosity of sleep arises as experiences; this is called the medium yoga of no more learning [medium non-meditation]."

And the last:

"The subtle stains of the object of cognition, dualistic appearances, are exhausted, and the luminosities of ground and path are mixed into one; this is called the great yoga of no more learning [greater non-meditation]."

Great yoga of no more learning and great non-meditation are also called 'crossing over, without any difference in day or night, to the state of the inseparable three kāyas'. In Dzogpa Chenpo sem sde this stage is referred to as 'the experience of spontaneous presence transcending the boundaries of ordinary contemplation'. These three sections span stages [skt. bhūmi, tib. byang chub sems dpa'i sa] 8 to 16.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 7:30 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
i would like to continue this thread by asking that how does Buddha-nature teach the correct view of emptiness? and what separates it from the extreme of eternalism?

Son of Buddha said:
The correct view on Emptiness in relation to the Buddha Nature is Shentong (literally)

krodha wrote:
In your opinion (literally).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: dream yoga and supplements, pills, some questions
Content:
krodha wrote:
Some people are of course more naturally predisposed to lucid dreaming etc., but for the most part I think the lucidity in sleep eventually flowers as a direct result of one's stability in the natural state. If you read some of the gradualist texts in Vajrayāna for example - which discuss the stages of realization - at a certain point the waking and dream states begin to intermingle on their own.

A friend of mine who is a good practitioner also said that after a certain point his ability to be lucid in dream and deeper sleep simply occurred naturally. That isn't to say we shouldn't attempt dream yoga as beginners, I think there's great value in it. And there are cetainly good habits which promote lucidity along with herbal supplements and activities that coordinate energy. But I think some of these issues with dream practice begin to naturally resolve themselves with time well spent in practice.

Part of the issue is that the all-basis [skt. ālaya, tib. kun gzhi], expresses itself as the deep unknowing states which occur in sleep, fainting etc. The all-basis is what falls away when we recognize our nature. It's sustained by karmic propensities and dualistic habitual tendencies, so some traces still remain latent even after recognition, but there is an increase in lucidity as those propensities fall away due to resting in vidyā.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 5:52 PM
Title: Re: What connects us all when there is no self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
to Asunthatneversets
That looks like a quote from the Lankavatara.

First off that text never says Tathagatagrabha is skillfull means.

Second “Mahamati, my teaching of Tathāgatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathāgata

The quote is seperating the idea of a substastial Self such as "the size of a thumb size of a mustard seed non buddhist idea of self from the tathagtagrabha(true self)

Third the rest of the quote is in reference to newly converted Buddhists,who still had wrong views of what the self was so Tathagatagarbha is redefined as to not confuse those new converts.

Fourth your translation from about half way down looks entirely mistranslated and doesn"t even make since nor does it compare or line up with Suzuki or Red pines translations.

As far as Buddha Nature being a definite teaching read the Dharma Drum Sutra and Nirvana Sutra.

krodha wrote:
It is a skillful means:

Thus spoke Samantabhadra: "The ālaya is a state that is like the vast general ground of all samsara and nirvana having fallen asleep and not being awake to the sense objects. However, even during the five unconscious states, mind itself and mind, which have the nature of support and supported, remain latently present. In the lower vehicles this [ālaya] is taught as the buddha nature for the sake of temporarily guiding the immature ones who are eaten by doubts regarding the stainless true condition."
- Jigme Lingpa


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Title: Re: What connects us all when there is no self?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
These schools are entirely inline with the sutras they uphold (third turning)

asunthatneversets said:
They tend to either (i) err into eternalism, or (ii) hold conditioned dharmas (mind i.e. consciousness) to be unconditioned. I don't doubt that they are entirely in line with certain individual's interpretations of the sūtras they allegedly uphold, but for the reasons given I would have to disagree that those interpretations are accurate.

Son of Buddha said:
sigh..........Start your own thread on the subject
with that said im positive your individual interpretations of the sutras is not in line with what is actually taught in the sutras on the subject matter themselves,which is why you cannot accept that these schools are inline with the respective sutras they uphold.

Peace and Love

krodha wrote:
Yes we will have to agree to disagree. Peace and Love.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 5:26 PM
Title: Re: What connects us all when there is no self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
asunthatneversets
Those who have perverted the Tathāgatagarbha into a 'True Self'
The Tathagatagarbha is the True Self,I havent perverted anything I just quoted what the sutra says it is.

[Nirvana sutra] CHAPTER TWELVE: ON THE TATHAGATA-DHATU “Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?" The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it. O good man!

krodha wrote:
The Tathāgatagarbha in and of itself is an example of upāya and is a provisional pointer for those who lack confidence in their nature. The Tathāgatagarbha being presented as a Self is yet another example of upāya, this is stated specifically by the Buddha.

"Similarly, that Tathāgatagarbha taught in the sutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, ayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the Tathāgatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

The Bhagavan replied:

“Mahamati, my teaching of Tathāgatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

Mahamati, the Tathāgata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as Tathāgatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of Tathāgatagarbha.

Mahamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

Mahamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

Mahamati, similarly, although Tathāgatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate Tathāgatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñā and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

Mahamati, the demonstration of Tathāgatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

Mahamati, the Tathāgatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate Tathāgatagarbha with the demonstration of Tathāgatagharbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 4:56 PM
Title: Re: What connects us all when there is no self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
asunthatneversets
All three turnings. The only traditions or views which stray close to eternalism are Yogācāra and gzhan stong.
These schools are entirely inline with the sutras they uphold (third turning)

krodha wrote:
They tend to either (i) err into eternalism, or (ii) hold conditioned dharmas (mind i.e. consciousness) to be unconditioned. I don't doubt that they are entirely in line with certain individual's interpretations of the sūtras they allegedly uphold, but for the reasons given I would have to disagree that those interpretations are accurate.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Title: Re: What connects us all when there is no self?
Content:
smcj said:
All three turnings. The only traditions or views which stray close to eternalism are Yogācāra and gzhan stong...
...which happen to be the basis for the Nyingma and Kagyu schools, as well as some Chinese schools.
You, Son of Buddha, are the resident eternalistic dogmatist, this is common knowledge to anyone who regularly frequents this forum.
Hey, what about me? Don't I count too?

krodha wrote:
The heart dharma of the Nyingma is Dzogpa Chenpo, which outright refutes Yogācāra and considers gzhan stong to be a post-meditative embellishment at best. The key Nyingmapa adepts of the past all considered early Indian Prasangika Madhyamaka to be their definitive view of choice.

As for the Kagyu, the teachings I'm familiar with (Drikung), do not fall into extreme views.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 4:13 PM
Title: Re: What connects us all when there is no self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
agreed the conventional self ceases to exist and was just a mirage, but the Mirror/Buddha Nature/True Self is still there untouched and pure.

asunthatneversets said:
Not at all. The dharma explicitly rejects a self of any kind. Including a True Self. Such notions are nothing but fabricated eternalistic dogma.

Son of Buddha said:
The third Turning Sutras teach True Self...(I actually quted from them in this thread if you need proof)

What would you say if I told you the 1st turning(Pali canon) and the 3rd turning rejected No Self and considered No Self to lead to suffering?

Would you consider all the proof I posted from the pali canon and third turning sutras to be fabricated eternalist dogma?

Since this is really not the place for this discussion/topic I will send you a PM if you wish.

krodha wrote:
Those who have perverted the Tathāgatagarbha into a 'True Self' will attest that it is thus and so. And I'm sure will be able to produce what they consider proof i.e. anything which allegedly supports their confirmation biases. You, Son of Buddha, are the resident eternalistic dogmatist, this is common knowledge to anyone who regularly frequents this forum.

What would I say if you told me that the first and third turnings reject 'no self'? I would say this is common knowledge. 'No self' is rejected just the same as 'self' and 'Self' are rejected, only a self would believe in 'no self'. This is why the accurate dharma is emptiness.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 3:28 PM
Title: Re: What connects us all when there is no self?
Content:
smcj said:
Not at all. The dharma explicitly rejects a self of any kind. Including a True Self. Such notions are nothing but fabricated eternalistic dogma.
Which Dharma? The 1st turning of the wheel of dharma, with the 4 noble truths? The 2nd turning, with the prajnaparamita sutras? Or the 3rd turning of the wheel of Dharma, which includes the teachings on buddha nature, the alaya 'all base consciousness', and the 'empty of other' schools of buddhist thought?

There is a gamut of views on this subject. You can pick and choose whichever you like. They are all validated through their own texts.

krodha wrote:
All three turnings. The only traditions or views which stray close to eternalism are Yogācāra and gzhan stong.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 2:54 PM
Title: Re: What connects us all when there is no self?
Content:
krodha wrote:
"At no time throughout the beginningless succession of lifetimes has there ever been an actual birth. There has only been the appearance of birth. There has never been actual death, only the transformation of appearances like the shift from the dream state to the waking state... throughout the beginningless succession of lifetimes there has never been any actual experience of transition or going from one state to another, or any actual experience of being located in some other place. This is analogous to the images in a dream."
- Longchenpa


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 2:52 PM
Title: Re: What connects us all when there is no self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
agreed the conventional self ceases to exist and was just a mirage, but the Mirror/Buddha Nature/True Self is still there untouched and pure.

krodha wrote:
Not at all. The dharma explicitly rejects a self of any kind. Including a True Self. Such notions are nothing but fabricated eternalistic dogma.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: Experiencing Annica
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
But in Vajrayana one gets into the Buddha nature and the internal reality of the kayas. So meditation on anicca gets demoted big time.

krodha wrote:
Vajrayāna, Buddha nature and the kāyas do not contradict anitya or impermanence. So it's impossible that anitya is demoted. The three marks; anitya, anātman and duhkha, are an integral aspect of Vajrayāna and the other yānas.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Pure Awareness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Most of what you say makes sense to me. Especially the part about pure awareness being a way to experience emptiness firsthand. Thanks.

A teacher of mine once said that emptiness is the absence of concepts. So this "intelligence" thing I'm positing that works with awareness (yin-yang-ishly) to enable us to fathom/navigate the world ... can it do its thing without conceptualizing? I think it can. Which means that awareness+intelligence (rather than pure awareness) is also a way to experience emptiness. Just thinkin' out loud here ...

dimeo said:
Pure awareness results in utterly releasing.

rachmiel said:
Utterly releasing what?

krodha wrote:
An absence of concepts (non-conceptual awareness) is the 'experience of emptiness' but it isn't the realization of emptiness.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Title: Re: Coincidences freaking me out
Content:
krodha wrote:
I agree that looking into 'meaning' is doing too much. They just occur. It's important not to attach to them and give them too much significance, if any at all. If experiences like that occur, they occur, if they don't, they don't, it doesn't matter either way.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Title: Re: Coincidences freaking me out
Content:
krodha wrote:
Another stand out was singing the song of the vajra while driving and getting to the last part which goes RA RA RA, and a truck pulled in front of me with 'RA RA' printed huge on the back of it.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Title: Re: Coincidences freaking me out
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Thank you. Yes, everyone please post more about Nyams and Makyo.

krodha wrote:
Konchog, my mentor calls this 'everyday magic' and says that the more one rests in their nature, or meditates close to their nature, these coincidences will arise. Every now and then I have large spurts of these occurrences, very bizarre and intriguing. I've had coincidences that make my heart jump because they're so fantastical. So it happens... and more frequently with honed practice.

For example, the last major coincidence was joking around with friends in a group text and quoting the line from the first Predator film where the girl Anna says:

"When I was little, we found a man. He looked like - like, butchered. The old woman in the village crossed themselves... and whispered crazy things, strange things. 'El Diablo cazador de hombres.' Only in the hottest years this happens. And this year, it grows hot. We begin finding our men. We found them sometimes without their skins... and sometimes much, much worse. 'El cazador trofeo de los hombres' means the demon who makes trophies of men."
I quoted the Spanish and 'demon who makes trophies of men' and then went on google and found a screen shot of that scene.

The very next day when I got home from whatever I was doing I turned the TV on and the first thing that appeared was that exact image from the screen shot and the character Anna was doing that monologue.

It was shocking to say the least.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Title: Re: Why is Dzogchen the Path beyond Cause and Effect?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
This doesn't make DC causal.

M.G. said:
At least from a conventional perspective the result seems to have a cause.

krodha wrote:
It's all conventional. Anything delineated conceptually is a convention.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 10th, 2013 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: does all smoking close the crown chakra
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
hi, i currently suffer from cigarette addiction, i just bought herbal ayurvedic cigarettes to help me quit smoking.

my question is that does even the ayurvedic cigarettes render phowa ineffective or close the crown chakra.

i read from chatral rinpoche's - compassionate action that indeed smoking cigarettes closes the crown chakra.

any information would be appreciated.

krodha wrote:
You should try some of those electronic cigarettes, maybe you can ween off your addiction that way. They have nicotine but are essentially water vapor I believe. Definitely the lesser of two evils when compared to cigarettes.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Integration
Content:
krodha wrote:
Jean-Luc Achard on integration:

"Oh yes there are plenty of things to do. Rushen for instance in order to clearly deepen this knowledge and have a direct experience that is not produced by our discursiveness. Then, the training of the 3 doors. Then specific techniques such as the Four Natural Accesses to properly access the state of Trekcho. You seem to imply that there is nothing to do: there are things to do to enter this state, and once you're in it you just cultivate it by integrating other things (after having become familiarized with it). This appears to be not understood at all in this discussion. When you are in this state, you just have to stabilize it. This takes the whole path to do so! (Don't bypass it because you don't like it, it's precisely like this, one has to practice, period). You may state otherwise but this is not Dzogchen anymore. This is Chan. We don't accept Chan as having a definitive perspective on the natural state in Dzogchen. This is a sutra-based approach which is at best dualistic (the 2 truths) or at worst nihilistic (don't do nothing). Then, what is happening in the meditation? Nothing, nothing at all. No integration. Once you are stable in the experience of the natural, you realize that this experience is uncompounded, unaltered, etc., and you don't have to do anything to correct it. But in general everybody (including our masters at a stage in their life) regresses from it. So one has to become familiar with it, through contemplation practice. But this contemplation practice is aimless if it just mean sitting and doing nothing. That means that each time you quit your sitting meditation, you are regressing from that state because ordinary life is particularly good at putting you back into an ego-centered life. But, if you want to integrate the natural state in a non-regressive way, you have to do something (otherwise it does not do it by itselt just for you). And integration is the very purpose of Trekcho otherwise your Thogel is not going to go very far. So again, i'm sorry to repeat it, but in while in the Trekcho state, you have to integrate 4 things (please Jax learn this by heart, I wrote it several times but you by-pass it constantly whereas it is the core of Trekcho practice and of all Dzogchen practices):

1. integration of the activities of the 3 doors (there are specific things to integrate here, very precise),

2. integration of the six sense consciousnesses (also specific things here too),

3. integration of thoughts (same as above), and

4. integration of various things (this larger in scope but precise too).

I'm not enumerating this list out of my imagination. This is precisely what one has TO DO in Trekcho practice. If your Trekcho and experience of the natural state consists in doing nothing, then your result is nothing. If you try to integrate the 4 modalities listed above (and you have a lot of specific practices in there), then you integrate your whole being to the natural state and that is real Trekcho."
- Jean-Luc Achard


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: blocking realization
Content:
krodha wrote:
One potential block is damage to samaya, and when you're a teacher you apparently take on the samaya of your students. ChNN has said before that because he has so many students, it would be somewhat difficult for him to attain rainbow body.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Dharmakāya is emptiness, definitely not a source. The five lights are originally pure, which means they're primordially unborn and free from extremes.

Duffster, regarding your question; 'spirituality' is a fairly broad term and could represent various systems, religions and traditions, all having different ideas of a source. In Vedanta for example, the source of phenomena is called Brahman. Dzogchen however doesn't posit a 'source' of phenomena per se... It's said that the way we usually perceive phenomena is incorrect, and that is the reason we suffer. So the system of dzogchen is predicated on recognizing the true condition (or nature) of phenomena. The dharmakāya signifies the empty nature of phenomena, which means that in truth phenomena are non-arisen and do not accord with any of the four possible extremes, which are: existence, non-existence, both and neither. When we realize that phenomena are truly unborn and non-arisen then that is called dharmakāya. That realization liberates us from our ignorant misconceptions that phenomena can exist, not exist, etc. which means we are free from the causes and conditions which sustain delusion and suffering.

duffster1 said:
u said 'when we realize that phenomena are truly unborn' so could the dharmakaya be called the unmanifested?

krodha wrote:
In the conventional context of referring to allegedly 'manifested' phenomena it (dharmakāya) could be called 'the unmanifest', but truthfully it's a false dichotomy because dharmakāya implies the realization that there's never truly been manifestation to begin with.

For dharmakāya to be the unmanifested it would require something 'manifest' to contrast that 'unmanifest' designation, but since manifestation is a misnomer, unmanifestation is an equally invalid notion (in the ultimate sense). We of course loosely refer to dharmakāya as 'unborn', 'non-arisen' etc. but these terms are referencing emptiness, so they're actually implying a freedom from extremes. A lack of extremes means that (ultimately) manifest and unmanifest are both equally inapplicable because whatever it is we could refer to as manifest or unmanifest is essentially nothing more than a false thought.

As long as 'unmanifested' is understood in that context then it's a suitable title. But if we interpret unmanifested as implying non-existence, or an absence (as a negative) which is contrasted and defined by an existing or affirmed (positive) designation, then we've fallen into extremes and have deviated from the meaning of dharmakāya.

Dharmakāya is free from (i) existence, (ii) non-existence, (iii) both existence and non-existence, and (iv) neither existence or non-existence. So that is to say; non-existence is an impossibility because existence hasn't been suggested to begin with, and vice versa. That freedom from extremes is the accurate view of non-manifestation. Like recognizing a snake in a dark room to actually be a rope, that realization implies that the snake is primordially unborn and non-arisen. The snake was a misunderstanding from the beginning, so it's recognized that there is no snake to exist, not exist, both or neither. We can tentatively say the snake doesn't exist, but such an assertion would need to be understood correctly otherwise it can easily become nihilism. I've even seen Longchenpa refer to emptiness as the 'true face of non-existence', because it realizes the unreality of X, but doesn't negate the mere appearance of X. Why non-existence? Because we wouldn't say that a mirage is truly 'real' or substantiated, but at the same time a mirage isn't utterly non-existent either. Dharmakāya implies the the same type of recognition, that things are apparent yet unreal. Illusory and ungraspable like a mirage.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 4:11 PM
Title: Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Jigme Lingpa defines dharmakāya as: "The wisdom that is aware that the manifesting objects - form, feelings, perceptions, and so on - are empty of self."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Title: Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Dharmakāya is emptiness, definitely not a source. The five lights are originally pure, which means they're primordially unborn and free from extremes.

Duffster, regarding your question; 'spirituality' is a fairly broad term and could represent various systems, religions and traditions, all having different ideas of a source. In Vedanta for example, the source of phenomena is called Brahman. Dzogchen however doesn't posit a 'source' of phenomena per se... It's said that the way we usually perceive phenomena is incorrect, and that is the reason we suffer. So the system of dzogchen is predicated on recognizing the true condition (or nature) of phenomena. The dharmakāya signifies the empty nature of phenomena, which means that in truth phenomena are non-arisen and do not accord with any of the four possible extremes, which are: existence, non-existence, both and neither. When we realize that phenomena are truly unborn and non-arisen then that is called dharmakāya. That realization liberates us from our ignorant misconceptions that phenomena can exist, not exist, etc. which means we are free from the causes and conditions which sustain delusion and suffering.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Longde Teachings
Content:
Norwegian said:
oldbob,
"For me [...]"

It's not up to you however.

It's up to ChNN, who has specifically stated time and time again, that to do Longde practice, you need to receive Longde transmission and teachings. In other words participate in person at the retreat site, or via closed webcast when that happens, on Longde.

oldbob said:
Sorry I did not make myself clear.  I was referring to what I believe is required to listen / view the Longde DVD, not to do the practice

You are exactly correct about practice, which is why I wrote,

"Of course, you should also do - exactly - whatever your teacher tells you to do."

I also wrote, "If you want to be official, you can request a lung of the teachings, and a short wang permission, in a vision or a dream, or in present reality," again referring to permission to view the DVD.  Of course to do the practice, you need to receive Longde transmission and teachings, in person, or via a closed webcast.

I learned the Longde from ChNNR, in person, in several retreats, and have practiced the Longde in retreats.  I pray that everyone who wants to receive the transmission in person, to be able to practice these wonderful teachings, can do so.  Perhaps making the DVD available to those who are members and have had pointing out instruction, will lead those who buy the DVD to seek out and attend a Longde teaching, in person, or in a closed webcast.  Perhaps this was the SSI thinking in making the DVD generally available in the "restricted" section.

ob

invisiblediamond said:
You know Old Bob, for somebody so experienced I wonder why you are still so full of bla bla bla. Maybe leave talking aside for a while.

krodha wrote:
Wait what'd Bob do? Pretty sure he's just trying to be helpful.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 9th, 2013 at 11:46 AM
Title: Re: Rigpa vs. Nature of Mind
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
While your point about renunciation and compassion is well-taken, I can't help but think that many practitioners enfeeble themselves thinking that they are not capable of practicing the view of Dzogchen when it is far less complicated than Vajrayana praxis, for example.  This seems to be particularly a problem with practitioners that convince themselves that only after long retreats and elaborate contrived practices will they ever meet with that which they most intimately are.

krodha wrote:
Depends on the individual, but most have a great deal of conditioning which obfuscates their nature. The long retreats and practices (in the context of Dzogchen) aren't contrived or causal endeavors, but are implemented for the purpose of integrating body, speech and mind with wisdom. Retreat is a beneficial environment because it allows for the practitioner to relax in their nature without the distractions of daily life. After a certain amount of familiarity with vidyā comes about, then the individual doesn't really have to worry about becoming distracted, and daily life becomes an ornament of one's nature. This isn't the case for beginners though. Karmic propensities and habitual tendencies are the factors which obstruct our nature, and because they're habitual it's not so easy to cut through them without some time away from the in's and out's of daily life and our respective relative conditions. Even masters take time for retreat.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Barney Fife said:
Not sure if this is what Malcolm is hinting at, but I have heard that "mind nature" can be used in Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen to refer to "seeing the empty essence of the mind", like experiencing emptiness free of thoughts.

krodha wrote:
The nature of mind is the inseparability of emptiness and clarity. A state free of thought is simply resting in clarity. Clarity must be recognized as empty for recognition of the mind's nature to occur. Otherwise clarity alone is merely the neutral indeterminate cognizance of the ālaya.

Barney Fife said:
And that in Dzogchen, awareness/rigpa refers to the awareness to be recognized within that experience of seeing the empty essence.

krodha wrote:
Rigpa i.e. vidyā, is knowledge of primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes], which is the three kāyas.

Barney Fife said:
So maybe, when that is recognized, one experiences the primordial state, which is taught to be the base of primordial purity,

krodha wrote:
Primordial purity is ka dag, which is one of the three wisdoms of primordial wisdom.

Barney Fife said:
meaning that one recognizes one's primordial state as the inseparability of the empty expanse of space/ying/dhatu and awareness/rigpa/vidya? Inseparable expanse and awareness?

krodha wrote:
You're sort of associating a lot of terms that aren't necessarily related or relevant. But 'space' is a term used in various ways depending on context. Space is sometimes used as a metaphor for awakened wisdom or emptiness. It's also sometimes used to translate the Tibetan word 'klong' i.e. long, as in 'longde' [klong sde]. Long is really a term that doesn't translate all to well... it's meant to relate to vidyā. 'Space of vidyā', 'expanse of vidyā'. Longchen Rabjam for example means something like 'All encompassing vast expanse [of vidyā]'.

At any rate though many of those terms have different meanings.

Barney Fife said:
It seems like Tantra Mahamudra has a primordial state teaching when they refer to the innate mind or the co-emergent mind that first arises spontaneously through completion stage yogas, but it seems like Dzogchen maybe has some special unique insights into that primordial state.
Probably have not understood this properly or thoroughly, though, in case anyone wants to clarify.

Thanks,

b.f.

krodha wrote:
The different systems are just different paths. Generation/completion stage Mahāmudrā, formless Mahāmudrā and Dzogchen only differ in praxis and methodology.

Some may argue that only Dzogchen allows for a result that is nondual ka dag and lhun grub, but I'm sure that's going to depend on who you ask.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
On top of that, most dharmic traditions (including Dzogchen), see consciousness as an afflicted product of delusory fabrication.

In most Buddhist traditions consciousness isn't held to be absolute, but is considerd samsaric in nature (meaning it arises from ignorance). Consciousness is usually attributed to the collection of 'consciousnesses' which correlate with each sensory modality. In the conventional model, consciousness and the organ cannot function without each other i.e. they are dependently originated.

In some traditions there are 6 consciousnesses: [eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness]

and in others there are 8 [eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness, emotional distortion consciousness, all-basis consciousness]

Consciousness itself is the fifth aggregate i.e. skandha which serves to constitute a sentient being (which is the opposite of a buddha), and are recognized as empty in wisdom. Consciousness is defiled by nature and represents a dualistic condition (as opposed to the defect-free condition of a buddha), though more precisely it is attributed to the various capacities of mind such as the sensory modalities, in addition to the other cognitive capacities (of mind) such as the intellect and memory. Therefore in the context of the dharma, consciousness signifies the faculties which apprehend and apperceive the various objects of experience which are perceived to be external from the organism. The afflictive sensory and cognitive consciousnesses which dualistically fixate and grasp at projected objects must be divested of the ignorance which dominates their perceptual functioning if they are to be expressions of primordial wisdom.

David Germano on consciousness:
"'Consciousness' (rnam shes; shes pa; vijñāna): rnam shes literally reads 'aspect-know', with 'aspect' generally signifying the various facets of objects which we can perceive (ther 'blueness', etc.); it often signifies something along the lines of 'consciousness'.... but in other contexts would perhaps be more precisely rendered as 'cognition', or even 'perceptual process'. In Great Perfection thought, the term rnam shes only applies to the neurotic psychic activity of ordinary living beings, and is understood in contrast to the ye shes (literally 'primordial knowing', and translated herein as 'primordial gnosis') which exclusively characterizes the psychic activity an Enlightened One (this is another way of expressing the distinction between 'ordinary mind' (sems) and primordial gnosis (ye shes)... In ordinary exoteric Buddhism, 'consciousness' is identified as the fifth of the five psychophysical components constituting human existence, and these 'modes of consciousness' or 'perceptual cognitive processes' are further classified into eight types: the five sensory modes (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile); the sixth 'psychic' or 'intellectual' mode (yid shes; mano-vijñāna) which synthesizes that sensory data, conceptualizes it, and deals with abstract images/concepts; the seventh 'emotionally distorted psychic' mode (nyon yid; kliṣṭa-manas) which involves our web of emotional reactions, cathexis, and ego-logical tendencies; and the 'universal ground consciousness' (kun-gzhi rnam-shes; ālaya-vijñāna), which is the 'unconscious' that constitutes a substratum that serves both as a type of psychic memory extending over many lifetimes, as well as ongoing source of all the other psychic modes' operations, which are like 'streams' of psychic energy trickling out from it. ...Longchenpa characterizes the five sensory modes of consciousness as 'cognizing (shes pa) aspects (rnam pa) of objects', which are thus 'cognitive energy' (shes pa) which develop resembling those (aspects), accounting for the term 'perceptual consciousness' (rnam shes, literally 'aspect-cognize').
In the Great Perfection (dzogchen), this 'universal ground consciousness' is understood as deriving from the 'brightness' (dangs) of the luminous channels, and is viewed as 'clouds' which obscure the heart's pristine awareness [Skt. vidyā, Tib. rig pa], which thus must be cleared away via contemplation in order to attain enlightenment. In addition, the Great Perfection tradition usually distinguishes between the terms 'universal ground' (kun gzhi; ālaya) and the 'universal ground consciousness' (kun-gzhi rnam-shes; ālaya-vijñāna)... It should be noted that this distinction between the 'universal ground' and the 'universal ground consciousness' has its precedents in Indian Buddhist literature on the subject, such as the Bodhisattvabhūmi passage which relates the 'universal ground' to 'non-conceptuality uninvolved with objects' (i.e. a total non-differentiation of any distinct objects), and the 'universal ground consciousness' to 'non-conceptuality involved with objects' (i.e. that which clearly sees presences, but doesn't conceptualize them); also see Sthiramati's commentary to the Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra... where he characterizes the 'universal ground' as the overall support or basis for the accumulation of karma (and thus resembling their 'house'), while the 'universal ground consciousness' is that which 'opens up the space' for these karmic energies (which Longchenpa explains as 'for the increase, amassing, decline, and so on of these karmic forces')."


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Barney Fife said:
Thank you everyone for the diverse and interesting contributions. Read several times over and contemplated all the posts from the early part of page 4 up to this point in the thread. Really helpful info, especially when read all together. Fascinating details about how Dzogchen understands those deepest questions of existence. Dzogchen is so unique.

Also, a consensus appears to emerge. Don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, in case I missed something (or missed everything). If I have understood properly after putting together what everyone said in the last three pages, it sounds like the consensus is:

What Jes Bertelsen calls "Unity Consciousness", and what Dzogchen calls "ignorance" are the same thing.

Yes? No? Maybe?

Magnus wrote: In Dzogchen ignorance is an active state that we continuously create, not something we are born in to.
Pero wrote: Hmmmmm, yet is ignorance why we are born at all...
Magnus wrote: True, ignorance is a continuous activity creating birth/death and all kind of experiences.
Quotation from "Essence of Mind: An Approach to Dzogchen" by Jes Bertelsen: Perhaps the meaning of life is to discover that everything has emerged from unity consciousness? Perhaps the physical universe is a windfall event, a celebration sprung from divine cosmic creativity? Perhaps from a certain perspective in consciousness everything is continuously, in every moment, being created anew? Perhaps every tree and every leaf really is a song of praise?"
(Kindle Locations 895-903; p.68)
thanks,

b.f.

krodha wrote:
Depends on what he means by 'unity consciousness', I would assume he's speaking of a unified consciousness, as a source, that everything emerges from, or something of the like. If that's the case then 'unity consciousness' and the ignorance Dzogchen speaks of would not be the same. Dzogchen doesn't posit a unified source-consciousness that creates everything, for Dzogchen, 'everything' is a product of delusion and arises out of confusion. When that delusion is resolved, phenomena are resolved and realized to be non-arisen. Bertelsen appears to be conceiving of an unafflicted divine-like source (like the Brahman of Vedanta) which gives rise to phenomena (like a physical universe) as an expression of its creativity... this isn't the view that Dzogchen employs.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 26th, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
LhodroeRapsal said:
In one of his much later book from 2008 Jes Bertelsen shares how the first meeting with Tulku Urgyen was
Otsal translated a part of this book in a previous posting, here it says: This unbroken apperceptive unity with Tulku Urgyen’s enlightened consciousness lasted between 20 minutes and half an hour.
So according to this the natural state was stable in Jes Bertelsen between 20 minutes and 30 minutes at their first meeting. Of course you can doubt the validity of this statement, which I do fully understand - because I would do that if someone told this about a teacher I don't know, and esspecially if this socalled teacher also seems to modify the teachings.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps his direct recognition of the natural state was stable for a period of 20 minutes, but that wouldn't constitute a complete stability. Those who are irreversibly stable in the natural state upon first recognition of vidyā are called chikcharwas [cig-car-ba], there hasn't been a chikcharwa for centuries though, supposedly.

I don't know anything about Jes Bertelsen, but if his recognition experience is true, it sounds like he was simply ripe for that insight. That doesn't mean he was stable in the natural state though (as in able to maintain a continuity at all times), for most it takes a considerable amount of practice to fully integrate the three doors (body, speech and mind).


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 26th, 2013 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Sanskrit for nonmeditation
Content:
Huifeng said:
Hmmm..., but "sahaja samadhi" (or derivatives) simply does not mean "non-meditation".  It could be translated as something like "together-born meditation" (in an overly literal sense), or maybe even "inborn meditation" or "innate meditation" (a closer cognate) in certain contexts.  But that doesn't sound much like "non-meditation" at all, at least to me.

~~ Huifeng

krodha wrote:
Sahaja would be 'natural', 'spontaneous', 'innate' or 'inborn' as you suggested, all of which correlates with non-meditation. Non-meditation is stable, natural and effortless absorption i.e. contemplation [skt. samadhi, tib. ting dzin].

Sahaja wouldn't be a literal translation, but would be an accurate translation as far as context and meaning goes. The literal translation of 'non-meditation' would most likely result in a term which negates meditation, however 'non-meditation' isn't a term which is negating meditation, it is a way to convey that meditation has become 'natural', 'spontaneous', 'innate' or 'inborn'.

If a literal translation is sought, it seems the true meaning/context of 'non-meditation' would be lost, so while 'sahaja' isn't an exact, literal translation, it does represent what 'non-meditation' is intended to communicate.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 12:27 PM
Title: Re: Sanskrit for nonmeditation
Content:
krodha wrote:
Non-meditation in sanskrit would be sahaja samadhi, which is spontaneous and effortless abiding in the natural state.

Non-meditation is a specific level of non-regressive abiding (in absorption) which transcends sessions and breaks between meditation sessions. So it's more than simply the opposite of meditation, which is what the negative sanskrit prefixes of 'a', 'ni', 'na' etc., would represent. Instead of a lack of meditation (or the absence of meditation), non-meditation is effortless meditation. Sahaja samadhi represents that state and is a fitting term in my opinion. But I'm no expert!


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness and Nothingness
Content:
krodha wrote:
"The two truths are not different like two horns; in the conventionally (relatively) real phase, when one sees the reflection of the moon in the water, insofar as there is the reflection, this is the conventionally real; insofar as this reflection is not the moon, this is the absolutely (ultimately) real. The fact that both represent one fact insofar as there is the presence of the moon in the water of the well without existing there, is the indivisibility of the two truths. About the intellect that understands it in this way, it is said that it understands the two truths."
- Longchenpa


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 30th, 2013 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Does Vajrasattva exist?
Content:
krodha wrote:
There was a recent thread somewhere else where the same type of question was posed; which was the reality or validity of the deities/yidams etc. To me it seems like this is missing a fundamental point of the dharma, that everything is equally apparent yet unreal. So when it comes down to it, labels of real vs. unreal, existent vs. nonexistent etc. don't really apply beyond a conventional level, and with that being the case, Vajrasattva is just as real as anything else is.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 29th, 2013 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Does Vajrasattva exist?
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Emptiness is the natural state of mind. 
It is the non-conceptual refuge, and the absolute bodhicitta. 
It is the Vajrasattva who absolves evils. 
It is the mandala of perfecting accumulations. 
Emptiness is the guru yoga of dharmakāya."
- Nyoshul Khenpo Jamyang Dorje


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 29th, 2013 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Does Vajrasattva exist?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Vajrasattva represents realizing emptiness I'm pretty sure. When you realize emptiness you behold Vajrasattva. So the deity is primordially established, I'm fairly sure that's what he's getting at.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 26th, 2013 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Silent Illumination/Shikantaza
Content:
krodha wrote:
There are a few commonly held misconceptions about Zen and Chán in Tibet it seems. Hashang Mahāyāna is often used as an example for Zen/Chán, and the view of Hashang's teaching is generally implemented as a cautionary tale to warn against attachment to formless states. I believe there were certain debates which took place which resulted in Hashang's teaching being perceived as advocating for a blanked out formless absorption, and then Zen and Chán were subsequently lumped in with that idea as well. But that isn't really the case, even for Hashang's Mahāyāna, I think some key figures such as Jigme Lingpa noticed this and even expressed doubt about that commonly held perception of Zen, Chán and Hashang Mahāyāna. Longchenpa also did a fairly in depth comparison between Dzogchen and Hashang's teaching (which can be found in Tulku Thondup's 'The Practice Of Dzogchen' ), he made it clear that he wasn't speaking of Zen or Chán, and even referenced Jigme Lingpa's doubt about the Tibetan idea of these schools. Also, Dzogchen master Vairotsana (disciple of Padmasambhava and Shri Singha) spent some time in China receiving teachings from Hashang. So no way to know where the commonly held views came from exactly.

The general view of Hashang's exposition and teaching is taught to prevent attachment to the experience of emptiness (meaning the space between thoughts and not the realization of emptiness). It's taught that attachment to that capacity causes the practitioner to delve into deep unclear states of absorption (referencing deep samadhi states) which can last for lengthy amounts of time. Stories are even told of yogis who have come upon caves where practitioners are found frozen in these mindless states of absorption to the point that their respective lifeforces have been rendered dormant for years on end, and they need to be revived. It's unfortunate that Hashang is mistakenly associated with that, and that Zen gets wrapped up in the mix. I'm not saying Zen and Dzogchen are the same by any means, but the perception of Zen, Chán and Hashang is inaccurate it seems.

The Great Perfection and the Chinese Monk: Nyingmapa Defenses of Hashang Mahāyāna:

http://earlytibet.com/about/hashang-mahayana/


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 20th, 2013 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Thigle
Content:
Stewart said:
Thanks Dronma.... I've emailed ChNN as it seems to resurface now and then... Obviously he's busy right now,  so I'll just bide my time until he replies,  and post his answer.

To be clear I asked about the precise order for Ati Guru Yoga. I'm actually in the process of commissioning an 'A in Thigle' calligraphy/painting from an artist friend of mine, so I'll follow ChNN's definitive advice.

krodha wrote:
Please share Rinpoche's response when you hear back. And post a photo of that art when it's finished, would love to see it!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 19th, 2013 at 1:49 PM
Title: Re: Thigle
Content:
Snowid said:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_e51bfU2D1ps/R118pQCVwEI/AAAAAAAAABM/B2UmiGHmBls/s1600-h/a_thigles_copia2.jpg

http://www.dzogchen.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AH_THIGLE_wp.jpg

Why does the color white is in different places?

krodha wrote:
So apparently that last image is not representative of any system, since there are no systems which have water [white] positioned last.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 19th, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Title: Re: Thigle
Content:
Snowid said:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_e51bfU2D1ps/R118pQCVwEI/AAAAAAAAABM/B2UmiGHmBls/s1600-h/a_thigles_copia2.jpg

http://www.dzogchen.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AH_THIGLE_wp.jpg

Why does the color white is in different places?

krodha wrote:
From a series of posts on the 'Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu' thread in the 'Dzogchen' forum:

Dronma wrote:
...the order of the colors of the 5 elements depends on the practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you are correct: there are two systems.

The Thun system: space, air, water, fire, earth. (e yam bam ram lam) [blue, green, white, red, yellow]

The Longsal system (which is the classical order of Indian cosmology): space, air, fire, water, earth (e yam ram bam lam). [blue, green, red, white, yellow]

Also these very same seed syllables in the latter system are also found in precisely the same order in Hindu element purification practice.

----------------------

heart wrote:

Thanks, but the tigle in dronmas post is space, air, fire, earth, water is that correct or not?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as it should be IN THE THUN SYSTEM.

LONGSAL is different.

M

----------------------

Mr. G wrote:
If we're doing an Anuyoga practice, we would use the one in the thun?

Malcolm wrote:
It depends: if you are doing an Anuyoga practice like Jnanadakini you use the Longsal system. If you are doing something not connected with Longsal, you use Thun system. The system used in the Thun book comes from lower tantras.

----------------------

Finney wrote:
Malcolm,
Here [referencing Malcolm's response to heart's post] you seem to be agreeing that the proper Thun order is: space, air, fire, earth, water.

But earlier you wrote:
[Malcolm wrote:
The Thun system: space, air, water, fire, earth. (e yam bam ram lam)]


so, I'm a little confused. Can you help clarify it for me?

Malcolm wrote:
Oh I see... I was not paying careful attention. Also Thun [practice book] cover is out of order. There is no system where water is last. That is just for aesthetics. It has been like that for 30 years. Since Crystal [and the Way of Light]. My bad.

----------------------

Pero wrote:
There are two different things. One is the order of mantras in the purification of the 5 elements. This is different in Tun and Longsal. The other is the order of colors of the thigle when doing GY. As far as I know, these two aren't related. I'm pretty sure Rinpoche talked about it himself and I'd give you a reference but after 14 hours of work I don't really feel like going through a 1000 pages right now to find it (or it could have been during a webcast in which case I'll never find it haha).


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 18th, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Title: Re: Manifest Phenomena?
Content:
Dust said:
Maybe- Awareness simply exists in a state of emptiness.

Thank you asunthatneversets, for the reminder that all words are lacking when trying to describe the Indescribable, I often get too caught up in philosophy, when I should be meditating.

krodha wrote:
Awareness is empty, meaning free of extremes just as everything is. When you read 'awareness' in those quotes, for example, what's being discussed is vidyā i.e. rig pa, which is knowledge of one's nature. 'Awareness' is sort of a translational trend gone awry in Dzogchen books.

Given the climate of 'spiritual paths' which are co-existing with Dzogchen, 'awareness' is a bit of a misleading term due to the fact that it draws certain associations with those other traditions, be it neo-advaita or something of the like which champions 'awareness', etc. So many become misled into perceiving Dzogchen as having the same characteristics and aspects of those paths when it's actually nothing like them. So it's good to find a qualified teacher who can relay an accurate account of vidyā/rigpa through direct introduction and proper guidance, otherwise we're liable to misconstrue the meaning of Dzogchen. Not to imply you have, just saying.

At any rate though, yes everything is completely and utterly empty including awareness, vidyā/rigpa, the base, path, result, chickens, cows and emptiness itself.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 18th, 2013 at 10:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
YogaDude11 said:
If I have already received skatipat initiation is it ok to watch this transmission? Is there anything I should know prior to watching?

krodha wrote:
Starts in 40 mins, just log on and the webcast will be roughly an hour. Most likely will be no explanation but just be attentive and listen/watch Rinpoche with the intention of receiving the transmission and you will. The webcast today will be primarily done in mantra so there's nothing to intellectually comprehend, just be present and attentive with the intention to receive the transmission.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 18th, 2013 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
Transmission webcast in 4 hours!


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 17th, 2013 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Manifest Phenomena?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Smcj, this is a clear exposition on the differences;

"In it [Dzogpa Chenpo] the essence [ngo-bo] of vidyā, the realization of the non-existence of the apprehended and apprehender, is called spontaneously arisen primordial wisdom. But Dzogpa Chenpo doesn't assert it as self-awareness and self-clarity [rang-rig rang-gsal] as Yogācāra, the Mind Only School, does. Because (according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (vidyā) is not established as internal mind. As there is no self and others, it isn't established as self-awareness. As the apprehended and apprehender have never existed, freedom from the two is not established. As it is not an object of experiences and awareness, the experience is not established as non-dual. 

As there is no mind and mental events, it does not exist as self-mind. As it does not exist as clarity or non-clarity, it is not established as self-clarity. As it transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness. This is called the Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes. Although it is designated as self-arisen primordial wisdom, enlightened mind, ultimate body, the great spontaneously accomplished ultimate sphere, and the naked self-clarity vidyā, these ascriptions are merely in order to signify it. It should be realized that the self-essence (of Dzogpa Chenpo) is inexpressible. Otherwise, if you take the meaning of the words literally, you will never find (in Dzogpa Chenpo) any difference from the cognition of self-awareness, self-clarity, and non-duality of apprehender and apprehended of the Mind Only School."
- Longchen Rabjam


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 17th, 2013 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Manifest Phenomena?
Content:
smcj said:
I could be mistaken, but this sounds like the Yogacara, a.k.a. Cittamatra, a.k.a. "Mind Only" perspective on emptiness.

krodha wrote:
Yogācāra says that consciousness [mind] is the ultimate nature of phenomena. Dzogchen, Mahāmudrā, Madhyamaka etc., say that 'phenomena' as phenomenal existents are products of mind, because they arise from grasping, however consciousness/mind are afflicted and are therefore manifestations of ignorance [skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa]. When ignorance is resolved, consciousness and mind are recognized to be non-arisen, and therefore phenomena are recognized to be non-arisen and free from extremes [empty].


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Only way to realise Lhundrub is longde or thogal?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Per Malcolm, with tregchö etc., you can realize ka dag, but with thögal it's possible to realize ka dag chen po, which is non-dual ka dag and lhun grub.

alpha said:
How about longde?
There were lots  of practitioners in the past who achieved the rainbow body by practicing longde alone.And that means perfecting lhundrup.

krodha wrote:
Seems to be the case, ChNN has said quite a few times that achieving rainbow body via Longde is possible. The eradication of 'coarse obscurations' however is something which has been mentioned before, that in practicing tregchö alone (without thögal etc.) there are coarse obscurations which will not have been resolved prior to realizing emptiness [ka dag]. So the realization isn't as 'pure' as the ka dag chen po realized with the tregchö-thögal combination. Not sure if Longde is or isn't able to purify those obscurations to the degree that thögal can, but I'm speculating at this point.

alpha said:
Q: then the Third Vision of Thogal realization of emptiness is not superior to the two-fold emptiness realized upon realization of Kadag at trekchod?

Malcolm wrote:
The answer to your question is no, it is not superior. The third vision is basically the equivalent of the first bhumi in the sutra system.

However, in tregchö one does not eradicated the coarse obscurations prior to realization of emptiness.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Only way to realise Lhundrub is longde or thogal?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Per Malcolm, with tregchö etc., you can realize ka dag, but with thögal it's possible to realize ka dag chen po, which is non-dual ka dag and lhun grub.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 2:19 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
It's said that Gampopa most likely received semde teachings from Milarepa and put his own spin on them, though I'm sure that is open to debate...

Malcolm said:
No, Gampopa started out as a Nyingmapa, then became a Kadampa monk, then met MIlarepa towards the end of the latter's life.

The four naljors are:

(i) shi-nè (zhi gNas)
(ii) lhatong (lhag mThong)
(iii) nyi-mèd (nyis med)
(iv) lhundrüp (lhun grub)

It is the the four ting 'dzins (samadhis) and the first two are actully gnas pa (calm state) and mi gyo ba (non-movment); the others are fine. This is the system of Khams lugs sems sde.

M

krodha wrote:
Thanks for clarifying about Gampopa.

So the 'four naljors' is an incorrect title, and 'four ting 'dzins' is the correct title? Or the four listed above are the ting 'dzins and the naljors are something different?

I had always been under the impression that semde had the naljors, longde the da's and mennagde the chozhags.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
flavio81 said:
#2. "Mahamudra is Dzogchen semde in drag" - Namdrol/Malcolm Smith. I don't know if it is correct, but it is a really easy to understand reply for me!

krodha wrote:
The four yogas implemented in formless/essence mahāmudrā are essentially identical to the four naljors of dzogchen semde:

Mahāmudrā is sometimes divided into four distinct phases known as the four yogas of mahāmudrā (skt. catvāri mahāmudrā yoga, Wylie: phyag rgya chen po'i rnal 'byor bzhi).

They are as follows:

(i) one-pointedness (skt. ekāgra, tib. rtse gcig)
(ii) simplicity (skt. niṣprapāncha, tib. spros bral) "free from complexity" or "not elaborate."
(iii) one taste (skt. samarasa, tib. ro gcig)
(iv) non-meditation (skt. abhāvanā, tib. sgom med) The state of not holding to either an object of meditation nor to a meditator. Nothing further needs to be 'meditated upon' or 'cultivated at this stage.

It's said that Gampopa most likely received semde teachings from Milarepa and put his own spin on them, though I'm sure that is open to debate...

The four naljors are:

(i) shi-nè (zhi gNas)
(ii) lhatong (lhag mThong)
(iii) nyi-mèd (nyis med)
(iv) lhundrüp (lhun grub)


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 at 8:13 AM
Title: Re: Forceful Zhine
Content:
krodha wrote:
Shiné is a fairly universal practice and the instructions shouldn't differ too much at all lineage to lineage. The goal is calm-abiding, as was mentioned. Shiné with support, without support and then released shiné which is essentially the natural state. Shiné is the first of the four naljors of dzogchen sem sde. In shiné the aspirant identifies stillness and familiarization with that aspect is the foundation for the other three naljors.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: Guardians in Dzogczen
Content:
Snowid said:
If the task of the guards is to protect the teachings and practicing followers
so why allow this what is happening in Tibet?
Why they not protect teachings, people and country?

krodha wrote:
It's interesting to look at the tragedy which has occurred in Tibet from the standpoint of what it has done for the teachings. Prior to the invasion, Tibet was very solitary and cut-off from the rest of the world and the teachings and their customs were largely unknown. The Chinese attempted to step in and stamp their culture out, and unfortunately they have indeed caused much strife, but really they also succeeded in being the catalyst for the teachings to spill out into the rest of the world. The Tibetan culture was forced to become refugees in the world and lamas spread across the globe, becoming more accessible and teaching the very systems which remained cut-off for centuries. So although the genocide which has gone on there is an unspeakable horror, there is a silver lining which is that the systems of Tibet are now found everywhere.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 26th, 2013 at 3:33 PM
Title: Re: Forceful Zhine
Content:
krodha wrote:
Check out "Stilling The Mind: Shamatha Teachings From Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence", good book with a lot of info on zhine and other practices; benefits, methods, advice etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 26th, 2013 at 3:28 PM
Title: Re: Forceful Zhine
Content:
Mikeliegler said:
asunthatneversets

I was not sure about the blurriness affecting my practice. I seem to have gotten to that point where I can sustain my awareness on the A and keep from letting thought's carry me off with them. I feel good and comfortable in this state but I still can't visualize without some support. I'm going to try Lhasa's suggestion and use the blink method.

Thank You Kindly



Mike

krodha wrote:
Yeah the blurriness is no issue, in fact space can be used as a support for your zhine. If you gaze two palm widths from the tip of your nose, your eyes are crossed anyways and everything is blurry, visions begin to manifest that way. Hold your hands up side by side right at the tip of your nose and then look to the far side of the outer hand, locate that spot and then drop your hands and keep the gaze there... extremely blurry! But good stuff.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 26th, 2013 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Forceful Zhine
Content:
Mikeliegler said:
I'm having trouble keeping focused on the tibetan "A" symbol. I can keep my mind on the "A" and when thought's pop up I can keep from following them. My problem is The letter A starts to get blurry on me after a minute or so. Is it OK to let the A get blurry so long as a thought's are not not given attention?

krodha wrote:
If you're looking at the image of an A and it gets blurry after awhile that's ok, I actually like to slightly cross my eyes on purpose and rest with that blurred vision. Better to start with the visual support before jumping to no support. If you get distracted just bring your attention back to the A. As soon as you notice you're distracted just drop the train of thought at focus on the A. In time you'll find you'll become less distracted. Eventually you'll be able to hold your attention on the A with no distraction, that is a good time to start zhiné without support where you just focus on space.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 15th, 2013 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: The Highest Maha Ati Teachings - Rigdzin Shikpo (Hookham
Content:
smcj said:
I clicked on the link you provided, and he does have quite an impressive beard however.

krodha wrote:
However it is utterly eclipsed by the magnificence of this fine specimen:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 14th, 2013 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Tara Mandala Chogyal Namkhai Norbu & Lama Tsultrim Allio
Content:
krodha wrote:
It's unfortunate there was no webcast for this retreat...


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 7:48 AM
Title: Re: Liberation Unleashed in the POV of Dzogchen
Content:
gentle_monster said:
Certainly not.

Although they obviously lack clarity when it comes to discern various insights, realizations etc...

But they are not mistaking their passing thorugh gate as final liberation and are opened to further refinement and practice...

They posted good article that clarifies their situation on their main page:

Integrating View and Experience

http://liberationunleashed.com/Article_Integrating-View-And-Experience.html

krodha wrote:
I think they've come to realize that what they call 'passing through the gate' isn't equivalent to liberation, a year ago however they might have, and many of those who went through their process did have that impression. They're very active on FB forums so I've interacted with them quite a bit in passing. To their defense, their founding members and 'key figures' are actually very passionate about the dharma. From what I've seen with their interactions online they're very open minded to receiving constructive criticism and seeking an evolution of their views, plus they're very friendly people... I know one of their founding members used to practice Buddhism and was part of a sangha which fell apart due to scandal. I think that caused him to lose confidence in organized systems somewhat, probably was part of what inspired the approach they attempt to implement. At any rate though, doesn't compare to dzogchen. If people have found benefit through their process that's great, but it's a distant and far cry from the Great Perfection teachings. Even Madhyamaka logic is more refined in my opinion, but to each their own!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Liberation Unleashed in the POV of Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Moreover, these sentient beings must have also discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conceptions of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self, because if they had not, their minds would inevitably grasp after such relative ideas. Further, these sentient beings must have already discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conception of the non-existence of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self. If they had not, their minds would still be grasping after such ideas. Therefore, every disciple who is seeking Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi should discard, not only conceptions of one's own selfhood, other selves, living beings and a Universal Selfhood, but should discard, also, all ideas about such conceptions and all ideas about the non-existence of such conceptions."
- Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra [The Diamond Sutra]

They usually fall victim to this very principle, they promote 'no-self', however 'no-self' becomes an objectified truth and therefore the idea of 'no-self' is grasped at by the mind, which ends up reifying and reaffirming the very notion they initially set out to negate. So all you have is a bunch of selves (afflicted processes of grasping and clinging) believing there isn't a self.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Liberation Unleashed in the POV of Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Tenpa, Liberation Unleashed is nothing like Dzogchen, and in my opinion their 'pointing out' is quite unskilled, they tend to fall into various extremes. Better to find a qualified teacher!


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
Today's retreat info:

Chögyal Namkhai Norbu will teach from what is considered to be the most important of all Dzogchen texts. Dra Thalgyur (sgra thal ‘gyur) is the abbreviated title of the Dzogchen Upadesha Tantra named rin po che 'byung bar byed pa sgra thal 'gyur chen po'i rgyud. Guru Garab Dorje re-transmitted this tantra about 300 years before Jesus was born.

The Dra Thalgyur has 6 chapters with a total of 168 questions & answers in about 200 folios. These questions include everything we always wanted to know about Dzogchen but did not know how to ask. It is the most important Dzogchen text but it is very difficult and condensed. During a period of about 3 years, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu edited 2 editions of Vimalamitra's commentary on the Dra Thalgyur. Korde Randrol ('khor 'das rang grol) means the self-liberation of samsara and nirvana. We are very fortunate that Chögyal Namkhai Norbu will transmit these profound teachings in this "open to everyone" webcast !!!
- Jim Valby


